Emo XSP1 Gen2 Vs Parasound P5

erniejade

Im hopping as it burns in it will open up the soundstage more and become fuller. Even though it good sound its a hair on the thin side of the p5.

Mikey081057

Are going to be able to flip them quick enough to not have to compare without having to rely on memory?

Devlon

I think I know what you're saying on the volume thing. When I got the R-972 I had to turn, and turn, and turn the volume knob to get it to any volume level. At first, I kinda thought it was a hassle, but later I appreciated this design in how that it could make finer, and more precise volume adjustments.

On the XSP-1, something I read but not sure I fully understand, is the automatic volume adjustment when the unit is first turned on. Does it default to a lower volume when it is first turn on to keep from blasting you unexpectedly (that is if you were last listening to it at a loud volume)? Does the P5 also do this? Thanks for your time in reporting!!!

[Deleted User]

Yes, thank you. I'm back in!

BlueFox

As a side note, it is a good idea to know what levels your pre-amp will display. I learned this the hard way. I blew the tweeter and mid-range in my right speaker by maxing out my pre-amp. I assumed the volume went between 0-100, and I had never had it above 75. One night, after my neighbors moved, I decided to see how loud I could go before clipping (a beer induced idea). Anyway, I was at 83 when the right channel went quiet. Up until then it sounded great. Loud, I mean really freaking loud, but great. It turns out the pre-amp is calibrated between 0-83. WTF kind of scale is that? It cost me $2k to learn that lesson.

audiocr381ve

erniejade wrote: »

The second unit was my mistake!. Again normally digital read out volume like my pionerr sc27 doesnt go that low or have to hit -30 before volume is present. -40 I could start to hear.

Now even though thats my mistake on not knowing its also an says how quiet thi. unit is. No hiss no noise nothing!. Its buring in right now. so far without it even on for an hour, i will say its more nutral and sounds good. vs the p5 is clean but on the warmer side

Haha, glad you got it working! My guess is the Emo surprises you. You're doing the right thing burning it in before making final judgements, have fun!

F1nut

Mikey081057 wrote: »

Are going to be able to flip them quick enough to not have to compare without having to rely on memory?

Switching gear quickly in an effort to hear any differences is one of the biggest mistakes people make in audio.

erniejade

Listening to Eat a Peach sacd this am. I love this sacd. Track 4 is a 33 min. jam Love it! If you don't have it, get it and play it loud. For me I cannot listen to it softly. It just isn't right.

Mikey, I can change it out in under 2 minutes if needed but, I am going to agree with F1 on this.To me, if an upgrade or change in gear and you can't really hear a difference or if its soo slight that it has to be changed that fast to know, its not worth the $ for a change. If your talking about a sonic signature of a manufacture, or a sound difference in general, or how much more or less detail you can hear, Speed shouldn't make a difference. However, I had some cables where it was slight where I like a speedy change but for me but, most of the time if its a cable or preamp, or even a tube swap speed is not needed. For me I like to live with it for a few days, change it to the next unit, live with it for a few days, playing the same music, and change back and see if there was something missing or more or less. I do this with tubes as well. ( actually digging some tele's in the AR sp16 thanks Doc R) I am not sure if F1 and I are on the same page for reasoning or not but, his general statement I am with him all the way.

I have never owned a emo piece. I am not a fanboy or whatever else is the phrase of the week for them. I just wanted to do a shootout for a 1000$ preamp that has a built in crossover for a possible smaller system. So why not have some fun doing a flat out shootout on the big rig replacing the AR with the other preamps. I know the rest of the rig well, so I didnt think it would be fair to do it with different everything and hearing it all for the first time.

After my mistake of not turning the volume knob more then 3 full turns to get sound out of it, i have let this run overnight. I am going to give it a full week or about 168 hours or so before giving it a full fair opinion. I would say review but, lets face it its all opinions on what we like or dislike.

To me, a good design in tone circuit at unity you should hardly hear any difference at all in our out. It was like this on my old McIntosh c39, carver c19, Adcom 565 ( for the $ that 565 is one heck of a older unit) I could engage or disengage the tone without any difference but, on the p5, I hear a difference. The xsp1 no difference at all. The tone is also minimum, so no HUGE jump in sound when you go 1 2 or 3, its slight and "just enough" to make a subtle difference without killing the rest of the frequency or overall tone of the sound, just where I think it needs it. When you hit the HF or LF trim and go 1 2 you almost have to give it a second to notice it but its there, not over done,and just enough to add a little or take the edge off of a shrill recording. It also only goes 3db max in either direction not like the typical 6-8 db.

So far, i do not find the xsp1 shrill or fatiguing at all but, I am running a tube sacd player and a McIntosh MC402 amp. For flac, Jriver into a w4s dac2. I do find it clean but thin. I am hopping after a full week it will open up more on that end. The sound stage is just as wide as the p5. Both preamps definitely have a big difference in sonic signatures.

When its burned in more, I will also check out the phono pre on both. Both have a MM and MC with load matching. Granted my lp rig isnt the best being a technics 1200 with a denon dl160. Still, i have spent more $ or tired several turntables in my rig and the sound differences were never worth changing for. Please don't take this statement wrong, I am not saying this is the best or nothing better or anything like that. Just for the $ ( 600$ ) on my rig using a jolida phono pre, I haven't had a different deck better it at this price level.

erniejade

Well as you can see the lights match up with the w4s and the power conditioner.

fossy

great thread as im always interested in 2 channel with bass management ...gots to have the sub ... the rear end of the emo is nice compared to the para ....I could go look for myself but is the p5 a john curl design ? I wouldn't touch anything para without his name attached .... thanks for posting !!!!

erniejade

I honestly have no idea if its a Curl design. I didnt see on the parasound site of it was or wasnt.

The bass managemet for 2 channel is what got me interested in both. A lot of 2 channel people are using subs even with bigger speakers. Unless I ran rca to the sub and then the sub to the amp it always seemed a little off in the bass like if ran full range to the speakers and tried to tie in the subs. It always sounded better going through the sub crossover but, thats a lot of wire running and not practical. Having the crossover built in like a HT pre is much easier and I think comes out a little better. Otherwise an electroinic crossover in the mix works well also. I am glad manufactures are putting this stuff in. Parasound on some of their other preamps in the past has had them as well.

Devlon

F1nut wrote: »

Mikey081057 wrote: »

Are going to be able to flip them quick enough to not have to compare without having to rely on memory?

Switching gear quickly in an effort to hear any differences is one of the biggest mistakes people make in audio.

At best, I only partially agree with this statement. Yes, if you can get the picture quickly on whether you like, or dislike how your new device sounds without switching quickly between devices that is great! As for me, this only gives a partial picture. I believe the sound as a whole (macro) comes from the adding together all the details (micro). But yes, the overall sound and how that draws you into the music in the end is what it is all about. (Read on. (This will make sense eventually)

I am a concert piano technician by trade. I tune for many manufacturers: Steinway, Yamaha, Kawai, Baldwin, etc., as well as for many world renowned concert, and recording artists. I tune by ear, and you could say I make my living from my ears.

A piano has 88 notes. It has a wide octave range. And, just because it has quality sound in most of the octaves, this does not mean that it universally has quality sound in all the octaves. You can’t get the complete picture of the quality of sound of a piano by just playing a piece of music on it. Some areas of the pianos range might be a lesser, or greater, quality sound compared to some other areas in the piano. It may have a nice treble, but slightly muddy bass. It might have a detailed, and pleasing midrange, but lacks sustain in the lower treble. There are many variables that when all are right can make for an amazing sounding instrument. While a piano like this (with the problem areas) overall might sound great to most musicians, very scrutinizing pianists can hear those slight deficiencies in certain areas, and for them it detracts from the overall enjoyment of the sound of the piano. Many people do not hear these areas of difference, and to them most pianos sound alike. On DACs, the same thing. Many do not hear the differences, and to them most DACs sound alike. Back to the pianos….great piano tuning is not done by listening to whole chords, or listening to notes, but listening to harmonics and partial ladders within the notes themselves, and how those intersect with other notes within the piano. When you get the micros right, the macros sound great! Great sound is in the details that you can’t hear when playing a song with a fury of notes. Great sound is the accumulation of the details (micros) done right. I believe it to be the same in audio equipment. So to listen critically to accurate frequency reproduction from low end to high end in a piece of gear you have to do this is small bite size pieces.

When I first get a new piece of gear I play it sometimes for weeks before I critically listen to it. I do this for two reasons: a) I want the newness of it to completely go away, and b) to eliminate any anticipation bias that I might have from the excitement of getting my “new toy”. Only then, do I feel like I can critique the piece from an objective viewpoint. I can usually get a good bead on the sound of the new piece of gear during this time, but there is no way by just general casual listening that I can hear and critique all the details of frequency reproduction that is going on and that is making up what I hear as a whole.

After listening for at least a couple weeks in the “macro”, or overall general listening, I begin to do tests in the “micro” to see what is going on in the details of the new gear.

How the “micro” detail tests are done:

I have a Phillips CD-50 CD player that has an A/B repeat function. These are no longer available on CD players. You can punch in/punch out any interval of time on the song you are playing. If you punch in and out a 5 second interval, the CD player will continue to loop those 5 seconds over and over until you stop it. Putting the player on pause only stops the sound not the loop. This is handy because as you switch between DACs, preamps, etc., pressing again the pause button continues the sound of the 5 second loop on the gear you just switched to. My rack is slide out from the wall during testing and I can usually switch cables and start again in 10-15 seconds.

I usually listen with the loop in each of three frequency zones at first: Highs, Mids, and Lows. On highs, I start with a loop of the instrument called the “Triangle” and loop it in Beethoven’s 9th Symphony. This is the highest pitch that I have on any of my recorded music. I listen to a 5 second loop repeatedly until I memorize the sound. Then switch to the gear I am comparing, and continue the same 5 second loop of the triangle. This test really reveals the differences in DACs, or a preamps high frequency reproducing capability.

I repeat the test again using acoustic guitars, and pianos for midrange. Earl Klugh Trio for Upright String Bass, and Skrillex for electronic bass. It is one thing for the new gear to reproduce one instrument well, but what about a 110 piece symphony? The demand on the gear to reproduce the accuracy of all those instruments playing together is really challenged. A/Bing 5 second loops of this “orchestral congestion” can be very revealing on a components capability to perform well in this circumstance. I am leaving out many other sounds that I analyze including human voices, but I think you get the idea. Even if a DAC, or preamp sounded really good overall and especially well on low frequencies, but made cymbals sound like a sizzling steak on a grill, I would not be happy with the overall sound of this piece of gear. Inversely, if a piece of gear had great transparency, and articulation in the high frequencies, but sounded like a half deflated basketball bouncing of a wall in the bass, then I would not be happy with this piece of gear either no matter how awesome the rest of the frequency spectrum sounded. I think you get the drift of where I am going with this. I think there is merit in general listening sessions of familiar music between the components you are comparing, but I also think it is just as important to do the quick A/Bing of short passages when evaluating a components ability to accurately reproduce the frequencies of certain instrument(s), or voice(s). Memory retention for sound is short. I read that on average the brain is accurate for approximately 20-30 seconds. So it seems to me that short burst listening test are important as well.

Ok, sorrow to derail the thread a bit. I am passionate about the approach to testing equipment as you can tell. Just couldn’t resist chiming in on this one.

F1nut

Interesting read, thanks for posting your thoughts.

This is something I strongly disagree with,

Memory retention for sound is short. I read that on average the brain is accurate for approximately 20-30 seconds.

If that was true we would not be able to immediately recognize the voice of a friend we haven't talked with in over a year.

BlueFox

F1nut wrote: »

If that was true we would not be able to immediately recognize the voice of a friend we haven't talked with in over a year.

That's a good point. I never thought of that while trying to decide if auditory memory lasted or not.

I just had an interesting experience with auditory memory retention.

The previous week, from Sunday until Friday the 19th, I was on Maryland's Eastern Shore, where I plan to retire, buying a home on one of it's many rivers. One of the primary attractions of this location is its natural beauty and calm, especially compared to where I now live in CA. For me, peace and quiet is a major part of that beauty and calm, and for that week all I listened to is nature from a wooded river environment, and any minor ambient noise from a much slower and calmer day to day life. Other than some occasional TV, there was no audio entertainment, or other artificial background noise.

Which brings me to my point. After returning, I found that the stereo sometimes sounded harsh to me by being so accurate and detailed. I think my hearing somehow changed by being idle for a week. Now that I am back to my current life I am again enjoying the stereo, and it is sounding great, especially on good recordings. I think the issue is many recordings suck, and a detailed stereo simply exposes that, and I had to readjust to hearing poor recordings.

Thorton

BlueFox wrote: »

Which brings me to my point. After returning, I found that the stereo sometimes sounded harsh to me by being so accurate and detailed. I think my hearing somehow changed by being idle for a week. Now that I am back to my current life I am again enjoying the stereo, and it is sounding great, especially on good recordings. I think the issue is many recordings suck, and a detailed stereo simply exposes that, and I had to readjust to hearing poor recordings.

Blue, I could not agree with you more. This happens to me sometimes after a short break. I go from "for some reason this doesn't sound very good" to "man does this system sound awesome."

Thorton

DSkip wrote: »

For instance, with my main setup, I get a soundstage that expands 10' outside both walls.

Sorry for my newbie question but can you explain this? I'm having a hard time grasping this.

Sorry to send this thread off track. I'm very interested to hear the outcome of the two preamps since I'm a music 2.2 channel man.

BlueFox

That is a good question. At the very least, that is a 20' wide soundstage, plus whatever width is between speakers. Also, if the soundstage is on the other side of the wall then how do you measure it?

Sorry Skip, but inquiring minds want to know.

Devlon

DSkip wrote: »

If the only thing you are listening for is tonality, there is a hell of a lot more you aren't getting out of your system.

Hey DSkip, it is not about tonality. Tonality can be manipulated through EQ. But even if it was, this would be by far not the only thing I listen to. If a piece of gear does not get things right, and here I mean the accuracy of that which was recorded, then things like transparency, sound stage depth/width, reverb bloom, sustain, tonality, spatial location of instruments/voices within the sound field don't matter to me. The realism of the things heard have to sound right before I am concerned with going further. I.e. on some DACs I can hear the signature sound of the Yamaha grand that Dave Brubeck plays. On other DACs I can't tell the sound signature of the grand at all. To me, it's pointless to consider any other aspects of that particular DAC, or other piece of gear.

tonyb

I like to let the sound settle in when switching stuff in or out. Then after a few months and my ears get acclimated to the newer sound, I put the old stuff back in for comparison. Sometimes the new sound is different, not necessarily better.

I like that some pre amps like the Parasound are adding digital inputs. They should have done that along time ago, same with the cdp. I understand the "purists" thought process in not doing that, but you have to appease a wider customer base as it grows in certain directions.....if you still want to sell gear anyway.

erniejade

Thanks all for the comments. I can see good points on everyone's opinions.
For me, Tone, timber, detail, how much is it pulling from the background like in older jazz recordings, on top of does it sound ok or good to me without killing my ears after an hour of listening are things I look for.

Since Devlon used Dave Brubeck as an example, ( btw amazing ears to be able to hear what kind of piano! That is an awsome gift and I can see why you do what you do for a living!!) sax i can hear him taking a breath, bass, I can hear him hit the strings or moving his fingers as well as the strings vibrating funny, at some point it sounds like someone moved around too much and the mic also picked it up. Blue Rondo, again I can hear people moving around and a cough or the drum sticks at the end! On Eddie Harris & Less McCann entire CD ( even though the recording isnt the best in the world) lots of people talking in the back or hearing him hum along with the music. I have heard some good sounding preamps and the tone seemd good to me but, they were hiding some of the stuff in the background and I couldnt hear it or it seemed like it wasnt where it is supposed to be or it was.

Soundstage is important to me. I have a small room. I have had some speakers or preamps that I have tried where the sound stage was narrow and sounded like it was only between the speakers and nothing extended byond them so it make the speakers not disapear in the room. When I have some wine and close my eyes, I don't want to know exactly where my speakers are! I want to to feel or give me the illusion of an actual stage and where the instruments are instead of there is everything right between the speakers all the time. A good pre,amp, speaker, source combo and make it seem like it extends beyond your speakers. Even where the singer is standing in your mind becasue of the sound or how deep the soundstage is to me is important as well.

erniejade

BTW on a side note that has nothing to do with this thread, I was reading some things and found out Steve Hoffman uses a McIntosh MC402 and uses a Joule pre. Kind of makes me kick myself for not buying the Joule that was for sale in the board a while back!

tonyb

The Joule is an excellent pre, used you can find them for around 2500, not too terrible for that class of a pre.

I'm following your P5 observations closely. For the entry price, seems like the ticket.

erniejade

I got a chance to do a little bit more listening last night. James Taylor Sweet Baby James ( audio fidelity) Rufus Wainwright Poses, Santana Abraxas ( Mofi) were used.

The emo has about 90 hours on it. The sound has opened up some but, I still feel it’s a little thin however, It’s clean. The treble is not fatiguing at all. Actually it’s rather smooth and crisp sounding. The bass is a little on the thinner side vs the P5. I would listen to a song, switch preamps, listen to that same song, switch preamps, listen again. I also tried with tone and without same songs and at the end even threw in my Audio Research sp16. The whole time I was taking notes. My wife and step kids are now officially completely sick of the songs used.

The Parasound P5 has 3 weeks running on it. I don’t have much longer with it unless I am going to keep it. 1st off, if your speakers are bass shy, this one is for you. It has a lot more bass then even my AR. I even threw in the 5751 3mica tubes to pump the bass up on the AR, not using the tone, the P5 has a lot of bass. It digs in deep to pull information out also. The hiss on james taylor before, during and after songs was louder vs the emo and the AR! The soundstage is more deep than wide however. Lets say I was at his concert, the P5 puts me about 6 rows back where the Emo and the AR puts me 14 rows back but at times it felt too in my face. The highs were clean but, not as airy as the emo or the AR. Santana Black Magic Woman/ Oya Como Va percussion was deep but, didn’t extend too far beyond the speakers. Bass. There was a lot of it! I quite enjoyed that part of the preamp. Rufus Poses, at several points of this song, you can hear the foot pedal of the piano being hit and it almost sounds like someone is up stairs hitting the floor. It definitely pulls a lot of detail out but, again, his voice was in your face not a few rows back. Now I find this part strange because with Santana, the percussion was back behind it all where it should be. This preamp gives the music a lot of presence and bass weight and makes everything sound .. well big in a way. The volume I could only turn up so much before it became too loud sounding. I was using a free cell phone db app. When It read 86 it was sounding almost too loud. Remember I am about 5 feet from the Legacy Focus. If I was in a bigger room, I think it would probably sound more “right” at higher volume.

Using the bass and treb on some of the recordings made it way overbearing. The preamp has a big sound and more bass vs my tube ( even changing from the tele;s to the rca 3mica) or the emo. Using them in that small room just blew everything out of whack.

Emo XSP-1 Gen2, again, it still sounds a little thin, not as big sounding as the p5 but, this isn’t a bad thing. It actually sounds more like the SP 16 except the top end seems actually a little bit sweeter, wider, crisper without sounding in your face or fatiguing. James and Rufus vocals put me in the imaginary 14th row vs 5 or 6 on the p5. The put me between the 2 others. I will call it 10th row. The hiss on James is present but, just not as pronounced as the p5. Same with the foot pedal on Rufus, its there but, I think because it doesn’t have as much bass, its not as pronounced. Santana was clean, percussion was darn close to the AR but, just not as full due to sounding a hair thin. ( remember still the ar next to the P5 almost sounds thin!) While the P5 might have been a little bit deeper, the emo seemed wider more like the ar. The percussion on Black Magic especially the bongos and conga since they were out of different channels seem to extend beyond the speakers on the emo as well as the AR where the p5 it didn’t go past it by much. Now here is what is strange, Where the vocals on the p5 brought them more up front and put the bongos further back, the emo brings them more up front by a few feet. Oye Como Va same thing.

Now remember the bass and treb only go + or -3 on the emo and it doesn’t kill the sound of the entire range using them in my opinion. It just seems to add it where it is needed. I turned the bass to +1 for a few songs, changed back to the p5 and did the same songs again. This brought the emo more alive. I then tried it to +2 and that seemed like it was a better fit. The bass was more like the P5, the thinner sound was almost gone and was actually quite enjoyable. Now here is another strange thing, I could listen to it louder on the DB app without it getting too in my face sounding. I was hitting 90-91 on it without strain. I am hopping the emo opens up more to make it not sound as thin without using the tone to at least make it sound like it does when I hit +1. This could be just me over compensating because of the big speaker small room issue but, it really did sound quite good up at +1 or 2. It also brought the foot pedal out on Rufus like the P5 did.

I am quite surprised on the emo’s top and midrange being wider but, not as big sounding as the p5. I am also surprised on the amount of bass the p5 has without any tone being engaged and having more bass then my AR.

It is still a toss-up. Both are very different sounding. I am going to try both units out on the Polk LSI9 next since they are a much different sounding speaker vs the legacy and see how it does on there. It could be the legacy might just have better synergy with it. Audioholics did a review with the gen 1 with an emo amp in a fully differential setup with Legacy Focus SE with fantastic reviews.

tonyb

Hard to make an honest assessment using the Focus in a small room. That alone throws everything out of whack. Maybe the LSI9's would be better for your comparisons.

erniejade

Skip, good point on the bass and cell phone. I never thought of that. Also "P5 bass was overpowering the room, and because of the bass hump, the treble/midrange wasn't able to get as loud before bass reigned supreme" did cross my mind. That's why I thought I should change it to the LSI9 / velodone spl1200 combo instead and I get to check out how good the bass management is on both then.

I am still suprised the p5 has more bass vs the AR though. It does dig deep. Suprised it brought more of the background noise to the surface on the older recordings vs the ar and emo both. Even though the AR is tube, it really doesnt have a tubbey sound ( not a word I know ) like a CJ or something along thoes lines.

As I type this Tony just posted about changing to the 9's also. It shall be done! The top end on the LSI in this room is sweet acually. I do like the tweeters Polk uses in them! Been debating to keep the Legacy or go down the bookie route. I do miss my carver amazing in the big basement. That was one of my favorite setups I have had over the years. I think because I have always had bigger speakers, it's hard for me to move away from them. Bookies or bookies with a sub for smaller rooms just seem easier to place.

I am stuck in this room for a few years. My guess is 4-6.

tonyb

4-6 years ? Then dump the floorstanders and buy bookies/sub. No matter what you do, the Focus aren't going to sound good in that small a room anyway.

Mikey081057

So I am using the P5/A21 combination with my modded LSIM703s while I am modding my SDA's. I have to say that during a few listening sessions I have looked to the sub to see that is wasn't turned on. My 2 channel listening room is small also with a 7 foot ceiling as well and the 703's sound really big; the soundstage is really wide and deep as well. I have farted around quite a bit with placement (i have limited options) and have settled with them being around 6' apart and about a foot off the wall. I haven't tried the LSi 9s as even with mods do not sound as good as the stock 703's let alone the modded 703's.

erniejade

Mikey its funny you say that about looking to see if the sub was on, I did the same thing! Because I have it all crammed into this room, the velodyne is in the corner and I got up to make sure it wasn't lit up. Big sound is definatly it even vs the AR. the P5 does sound bigger. I am glad that isnt just my opinion!

Tony, you know I have been on the fence about it for a while. kills me in a way sice I do love the Legacy but, your right.A few years ago I had a small rig in this room with small floor standers and had some good results. The JM labs 815's were in here.

I bought the 9's to see how a bookie would do in this room. Just to get the feel of it but, I havent honestly given them a lot of time. I do need to do that. I will put them back on tonight and eat some spinach and move the legacy's out of the way.

audiocr381ve

Interesting find so far. Seems to me like the Emo is the winner with the tone control engaged. Keep us posted

audiocr381ve

DSkip wrote: »

audiocr381ve wrote: »

Interesting find so far. Seems to me like the Emo is the winner with the tone control engaged. Keep us posted

Given the setup, I think its pretty clear why it's 'the winner'.

Just because the speakers aren't ideal for his room doesn't mean he's not hearing distinct differences. Smooth highs vs even smoother highs would still be the case whether the room is scaled or not. If he's hearing more bass from the P5, he'll hear more bass from the P5 in any room with the same set of speakers.