Mr. Measurement reviews the XP-30
- Thread starter rockitman
- Start date
Very black background, fast articulate bass, super smooth high end with lots of air. Also very good ergonomically.
This is my opinion of course, not trying to state a fact. The XP-30 by comparison was thicker sounding in the bass (I won't say muddy, but not as articulate as the Ayre) and didn't have the highs or air. At the time both preamps were partnered with Lamm M1.2 Reference amps (e.g. not Pass or Ayre) in the case that info helps.
In any case, they sound very different.
is there the possible chance when you auditioned the XP-30 it was a new, unbroken in unit ?
That is exactly how I would describe my XP-30.
That is exactly how I would describe my XP-30.
I'm quite sure the XP-30 was broken in. I heard the KX-R and XP-30 in Madfloyd's system. He did indeed prefer the Ayre. I preferred the Pass. We have slightly different sonic priorities. I don't think either sounded great with the Lamm amps. We did insert my Pass XA160.5 into the system and then listened to both pre amps again. I think Madfloyd still preferred the Ayre, but this is when I thought the XP-30 and his Sasha based system really sounded great. Unfortunately, we did not have the Ayre monos to due a proper Ayre/Pass comparison. In the end, I think both pre amps are extremely good and whether one prefers one or the other will come down to the system context and personal preferences.
I then borrowed the XP-30 and inserted it into my system where it was clearly better than my XP-20. I would love to own one some day, but I have other upgrade priorities at the moment.
I'm a bit perplexed by the Stereophile review. There was not much description about the sound and the conclusion seemed very qualified. I also think Pass preamps sound best with Pass amps.
I then borrowed the XP-30 and inserted it into my system where it was clearly better than my XP-20. I would love to own one some day, but I have other upgrade priorities at the moment.
I'm a bit perplexed by the Stereophile review. There was not much description about the sound and the conclusion seemed very qualified. I also think Pass preamps sound best with Pass amps.
Peter, you may have a good selection of XP30s coming up when Pass brings out the new XS preamp.
I would say - considering solid state the KX-R is the preamplifier is that sounded better in my system and room in the configuration X-Y-Z.
I have no experience with the XP-30, but I have never seen a Pass system wired with Transparent Audio Reference, that I know pretty well. IMHO sometimes simply changing the cables can reverse ones preference. Most of the times I have seen Pass electronics associated with cables that are not so full bodied as the Transparent ones. I own Opus XLR ICs , but in the same way they can make a great sound, in the wrong matching they can kill the system. As usually, my 2 cents IMHO.
It was new and I broke it in. I had it for 2 months. I did the comparison after about a month.
I had an XP-10 for years until just recently and I also compared it to the XP-30. The XP-30 was better for sure (as it should be) but the tonal balance is different from the XP-10 or XP-20. There are people prefer the XP-20 to the XP-30 for that reason. The XP-30 is warmer sounding (maybe in an effort to be more tube-like). For my tastes it had too much warmth, but that was in my system, my room, my taste etc.
I still liked the XP-30 a lot - I have had something like 20 preamps and it was very very good so I struggled to adjust the balance and I will say classical music never sounded better. I had heard great things about the Ayre KX-R (including from a few people who preferred it to the XP-30) so I auditioned it. There was a big tonal difference. It was leaner - which worked better in my system - resulting in very articulate bass, and very open upper end, very detailed etc. When I would go back to the XP-30 it felt syrupy slow in comparison (doesn't mean it IS slow, that's just what my brain told me).
This is all so subjective and system dependent. If they sounded the same it would still be a tough choice because the XP-30 was less expensive but had 3 boxes (which wasn't a plus to me - YMMV), but I definitely knew what I preferred.
In any case, I am super picky when it comes to preamps - especially when mated with Wilsons (at least my Sashas); I want the articulate fast bass of a solid state preamp (I'm a bass player...) and the meat-on-the-bones of a tube amp so that reed instruments and cymbals have realistic weight, especially in the upper registers. If I owned another brand of speakers I would probably have a solid state pre.
You are right; I should have said the KX-R was my preferred preamp and not tried to suggest it was 'best' in any way.
On the subject of cables, I might have a different opinion if I tried the two preamps today. I now have Transparent cables which are leaner sounding than the cables I used at the time - which were PAD.
I thought the exploration of the pros and cons of multiple components vs. integration was potentially a very interesting, enlightening discussion. Does anyone know of any comprehensive testing/comparisons that have been done? Do separate boxes typically measure with significantly lower noise than very well-engineered integrated units? I know what the conventional wisdom says; logic can challenge that wisdom. What does the data say? Anyone know?
Tim
Tim
Tim,
I think most of the time it is a question of separating the power supplies, distance and direction between noise sources and the amplifying circuits. In order to keep the same characteristics you would end with a very large and heavy box, that would be very difficult to assemble, manipulate and service. There is nothing miraculous in separate boxes, just better engineering.
Considering measurements we still have not agreed on the measurements that have correlation with sound quality, so I will skip this one.
That's the conventional wisdom. And we're not talking about any illusive "sound quality" that's subjective or difficult to recognize, we're talking about noise. It is measurable to well below audibility. If one approach is clearly better engineering, that should be very easy to demonstrate. Has anyone done that or do we believe the multi-box solution is better because we've always believed the multi-box solution is better?
Tim
Nobody that I'm aware of has developed a noise measurement for when music is playing. A null test would do it but its very difficult to get a deep enough null in practice. That's perhaps the reason nobody does it as a measurement.
I'm quite sure there have been manufacturers that have built boxes with internal PS and as an upgrade, offered with external PS.
There is the other side of the coin with designers and equipment that simpler is better.
the multiple box design has not quite been so easy with the XP-25 phono stage from a noise perspective. That took me an age to remove the hum - it is a hum magnet and to me it seems to be a design flaw. Seems to not like large transformers. The two box XONO you could put anywhere and zero noise.
In the end it comes down to the design and the sound the designer is looking for than any given superiority of one over the other.
I had the XP-25 in my system for a month and never had any hum issues with it. Phono stages seem to be the most sensitive to hum in a system and you never know whether there will be an issue until you try it in your own system. I took it over to a friends house and we had a hum problem. The XP-25 had some very good qualities in my system but was fatiguing to listen to for some reason. I wanted to like it but had to send it back. Maybe in an all Pass system it would fair better.
I had a tape pre in here that had a hum AND picked up RFI.... it had an internal PS. The 2 tape pre's that I had in here with an external PS were dead quiet.
exactly...if we are to believe multi box solutions are a waste of time, perhaps we should take some minus IQ tabs....
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |