KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,958
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 24, 2020 15:20:57 GMT -5
I would also be quite interested to hear about what the company in Germany you mentioned upgrades on the Marantz. (Obviously they believe there's a lot wrong with it... otherwise it wouldn't need to be modified after you purchase it.) After so many troubles with the rmc1 I seriously consider re buying 1 Marantz AV8805 (2790€) because after reading this I read there will be an update for DTS: X pro, Auro 3D the new version of Auromatic 2.0 in a few months and I found a company in Germany which optimizes the 8805 with 304 motivations of the power supply card, DAC and HDAMs. I will have Auro 3D again and the Marantz is worth on. It’s not that I’m fed up with RMC I’m fed up with nothing going on at Emo, no update, no Dirac, no plan for future development it’s no longer possible. What would I have lost in terms of time and money by purchasing RMC-1. For what it interests: www.authentic-cinema.de/modifikation-und-tuning-av-und-hifi/vorstufen-av-surround-und-stereo/marantz-av8805/Do come back when you've had plenty of time with your DTS:X Pro/Auromatic 2.0 featured Marantz AV8805 and give us a review.
|
|
|
Post by jim80z on Jan 24, 2020 15:22:52 GMT -5
The same was said about 1.7 before it came out... and look what happened when they "fixed a few small issues" before that released... LOL Look at it this way ; the fallback this time is the much improved 1.76 beta . Things are looking up edit LC said it while I procrastinated Yes this is true however two words "change control". If Emotiva has a FW product that has gone through proper beta testing then it is the one that should be released without alteration. Releasing 1.8 without comprehensively tested changes added to 1.7.6 will just generate a tonne of bad press/noise on this and other forums which Emotiva doesn't need (imagine these minor changes start bricking units). Someone else said it on this forum, if you have some smaller changes post 1.8.....add them, then reissue for beta and finally release as 1.8.1. I have seen so many disasters where strict change control hasn't been followed ie "while Im here I will just add/fix this" or people just diverge from the originally drafted change plan etc. Hopefully Emotiva have instituted SW dev industry practices. Looking forward to 1.8!
|
|
|
Post by MonsieurAl on Jan 24, 2020 16:02:02 GMT -5
I would also be quite interested to hear about what the company in Germany you mentioned upgrades on the Marantz. (Obviously they believe there's a lot wrong with it... otherwise it wouldn't need to be modified after you purchase it.) Do come back when you've had plenty of time with your DTS:X Pro/Auromatic 2.0 featured Marantz AV8805 and give us a review. Maybe the SQ will be at the RMC level? who knows ? I'm still looking for testimonials ... but first I have to take care of the RMC, I'm divided but I think I'm going to abandon the Emotiva because it will never have Auro 3D I am one of the first users of 'Auro and I miss him very much. it is becoming a criterion more and more demanded by the buyers of 16 channel processor. And even if the 8805 does not arrive at the RMC SQ it has all the functionality and stability that the RMC will never have! I do not expect much from 1.8 just a little thought to silence the critics but no evolution of functionality.
|
|
|
Post by MonsieurAl on Jan 24, 2020 16:15:47 GMT -5
I received my new hifi player Zidoo UHD 2000 I hope not to have "yet" compatibility problems with the RMC-1. I did not have time to install it but. I noticed in unboxing that it is heavier than the rmc-1 ...? I install it tomorrow
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,200
|
Post by geebo on Jan 24, 2020 16:21:59 GMT -5
I received my new hifi player Zidoo UHD 2000 I hope not to have "yet" compatibility problems with the RMC-1. I did not have time to install it but. I noticed in unboxing that it is heavier than the rmc-1 ...? I install it tomorrow I have a Zidoo Z10 and it plays very nicely with the RMC-1L.
|
|
|
Post by bolle on Jan 24, 2020 16:22:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by megash0n on Jan 24, 2020 16:35:41 GMT -5
FWIW, I recently purchased a few of Monoprice's 8k rated HDMI cables. They have been fantastic so far. The previous cable I was using caused constant resyncing issues with my HTPC among other issues. I've been through 4 movies without a single hiccup and I never could make it through one without a dozen or so... Some requiring a reboot. I see BBLV chose the DynamicView, which ones did you chose? I see in some of the product review comments that the flexibility isn't the best, what are your thoughts (I will be using them in a rack so want to run with some bends)? Monoprice Ultra Slim Series Ultra 8K High Speed HDMI Cable, 48Gbps, 8K, Dynamic HDR, eARC, 3ft Black Monoprice DynamicView Ultra 8K Premium High Speed HDMI Cable, 48Gbps, 8K, Dynamic HDR, eARC, 6ft Black I got these: Monoprice DynamicView Ultra 8K Premium High Speed HDMI Cable, 48Gbps, 8K, Dynamic HDR, eARC, 6ft Black As far as flexibility... It isn't ribbon cable, but I didn't really think they were super stiff. I'd say you need about a 2 inch clearance to make turns?
|
|
|
Post by jim80z on Jan 24, 2020 16:45:50 GMT -5
I see BBLV chose the DynamicView, which ones did you chose? I see in some of the product review comments that the flexibility isn't the best, what are your thoughts (I will be using them in a rack so want to run with some bends)? Monoprice Ultra Slim Series Ultra 8K High Speed HDMI Cable, 48Gbps, 8K, Dynamic HDR, eARC, 3ft Black Monoprice DynamicView Ultra 8K Premium High Speed HDMI Cable, 48Gbps, 8K, Dynamic HDR, eARC, 6ft Black I got these: Monoprice DynamicView Ultra 8K Premium High Speed HDMI Cable, 48Gbps, 8K, Dynamic HDR, eARC, 6ft Black As far as flexibility... It isn't ribbon cable, but I didn't really think they were super stiff. I'd say you need about a 2 inch clearance to make turns? Thanks for the info.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,958
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 24, 2020 17:35:28 GMT -5
Rating "the dynamic range of human hearing" is not nearly as simple as it sounds. Our hearing has the equivalent of several stages of very effective dynamic range compression. So, if you've been in a very quiet area for some time, your ears adjust and become more sensitive... And, if you spend time in a very loud environment, they become much less sensitive to quiet sounds. (For example, after leaving a loud concert, if you didn't wear earplugs, it will probably be several minutes before you can hear a whisper again.)
Because of this, the dynamic range we can experience in the short term is much narrower than the overall dynamic range. Our eyesight works pretty much the same way. You can easily see the light of a firefly on a dark night... And you can also easily see in bright sunlight... But you won't see the light of that firefly in bright sunlight... (Your vision has a very wide dynamic contrast range - but you can't use all of it at once.)
This is why you don't usually notice the surface noise on a vinyl album or tape - even though the dynamic range is limited to 60 dB or so.
I would therefor suggest that even a dynamic range of 100 dB is audibly transparent - and, under most circumstances, even far less would be more than adequate.
For a reference.... the widest dynamic range that can theoretically be stored on a CD is around 96 dB. (And most of the audible differences between DACs are NOT due to S/N ratio or THD.... excluding a few odd boutique designs.)
When I do this comparison I take a native DSD128 file and a PCM192k from the *same mastered source*.
Yes, judging what "sounds better" in this range is *very* subjective. That's why you can use THD/SNR/DNR as purely objective terms to "start the discussion".
You'd have to define why you say these other sources have way better SQ than a Sonica. Is this an emperical observation or are you comparing THD/SNR/DNR?
To my ear, the 9308PRo in the Sonica sounds cleaner, sounds better and is overall more pleasing.
I must question the accuracy of the 140dB assertion on Wikipedia. 140dB SPL is the onset of pain. All of the tesearch I've read states 118-119dB of dynamic range of human hearing. this is why 120dB is considered transparent. This is a good source for content for comparisons (including MQA). www.2l.no/hires/
|
|
|
Post by mikoz on Jan 24, 2020 17:48:40 GMT -5
Rating "the dynamic range of human hearing" is not nearly as simple as it sounds. Our hearing has the equivalent of several stages of very effective dynamic range compression. So, if you've been in a very quiet area for some time, your ears adjust and become more sensitive... And, if you spend time in a very loud environment, they become much less sensitive to quiet sounds. (For example, after leaving a loud concert, if you didn't wear earplugs, it will probably be several minutes before you can hear a whisper again.)
Because of this, the dynamic range we can experience in the short term is much narrower than the overall dynamic range. Our eyesight works pretty much the same way. You can easily see the light of a firefly on a dark night... And you can also easily see in bright sunlight... But you won't see the light of that firefly in bright sunlight... (Your vision has a very wide dynamic contrast range - but you can't use all of it at once.)
This is why you don't usually notice the surface noise on a vinyl album or tape - even though the dynamic range is limited to 60 dB or so.
I would therefor suggest that even a dynamic range of 100 dB is audibly transparent - and, under most circumstances, even far less would be more than adequate.
For a reference.... the widest dynamic range that can theoretically be stored on a CD is around 96 dB. (And most of the audible differences between DACs are NOT due to S/N ratio or THD.... excluding a few odd boutique designs.)
I must question the accuracy of the 140dB assertion on Wikipedia. 140dB SPL is the onset of pain. All of the tesearch I've read states 118-119dB of dynamic range of human hearing. this is why 120dB is considered transparent. This is a good source for content for comparisons (including MQA). www.2l.no/hires/
Nope, you're getting the 96dB from a pure tone.... music is more than just one tone. The math is 6.022N+1.76dB, but this only applies for a pure tone... but that aside, I wasn't ever implying you'd use 44.1k 16bit audio to get the best DNR experience... I specifically said DSD128.
No one said 140dB wouldn't be painful, but it's more than 96dB or 100dB in every day life... plenty of evidence to show that.
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Jan 24, 2020 18:18:41 GMT -5
I’ve read that human dynamic range is about 118db tops.. So that’s why most high end DACs reach beyond human hearing. I think you’d be able to get as good a sound using a ”lesser” DAC with a great implementation. It’s just that you like the sound characteristics of the Oppo Sonica+ESS 9038. Many high end devices use 9026 or 9028 as well. These having WAY better SQ than Sonica even though it uses 9038. To compare a 192khz PCM with a DSD you need to have them coming from the same master and mix. This is probably not the case usually. Therefore you experience a sound difference, better or worse. SACD usually have a great recording with the best masters, and IMO mixed with very clear sound.
When I do this comparison I take a native DSD128 file and a PCM192k from the *same mastered source*.
Yes, judging what "sounds better" in this range is *very* subjective. That's why you can use THD/SNR/DNR as purely objective terms to "start the discussion".
You'd have to define why you say these other sources have way better SQ than a Sonica. Is this an emperical observation or are you comparing THD/SNR/DNR?
To my ear, the 9308PRo in the Sonica sounds cleaner, sounds better and is overall more pleasing.
Well 140db might be the theoretical top for a very young person in certain frequencies (mid range). Normal young to middle aged persons 35-55 does not have this range. Also most higher volumes like +110db would no be recommended to listen to even though you ”can” hear it. A link on the wiki page also goes to a site where you get a explanation why +48khz and 24bit playback is unnecessary and even unwanted. It explains that you get audio distortions when playing high sampled sound. Also explaining that 24 bit is unnecessary, even though giving a higher dynamic range, because the improvements happens beyond human hearing. It also says that having high sample rate and bit rate is good when recording and mixing. I have not listen to those units that are ”way better”. I have read several reviews. Although Sonica is very good, it is not the best sounding streamer around according to several reviews. Actually most streamers have lesser DAC’s than Sonica. Both better and worse ones. Devices with ESS 9038 will win specs most times unless badly implemented. But anyway, this is a moot point because each will have their prefered sound signature. I’m glad you are happy with your Sonica. I’m not surpriced it sounds great. Oppo always made great devices. As I wrote before, I almost bought it myself. I would probably have owned one unless Oppo wouldn’t have closed business.
|
|
|
Post by mikoz on Jan 24, 2020 18:38:42 GMT -5
When I do this comparison I take a native DSD128 file and a PCM192k from the *same mastered source*.
Yes, judging what "sounds better" in this range is *very* subjective. That's why you can use THD/SNR/DNR as purely objective terms to "start the discussion".
You'd have to define why you say these other sources have way better SQ than a Sonica. Is this an emperical observation or are you comparing THD/SNR/DNR?
To my ear, the 9308PRo in the Sonica sounds cleaner, sounds better and is overall more pleasing.
Well 140db might be the theoretical top for a very young person in certain frequencies (mid range). Normal young to middle aged persons 35-55 does not have this range. Also most higher volumes like +110db would no be recommended to listen to even though you ”can” hear it. A link on the wiki page also goes to a site where you get a explanation why +48khz and 24bit playback is unnecessary and even unwanted. It explains that you get audio distortions when playing high sampled sound. Also explaining that 24 bit is unnecessary, even though giving a higher dynamic range, because the improvements happens beyond human hearing. It also says that having high sample rate and bit rate is good when recording and mixing. I have not listen to those units that are ”way better”. I have read several reviews. Although Sonica is very good, it is not the best sounding streamer around according to several reviews. Actually most streamers have lesser DAC’s than Sonica. Both better and worse ones. Devices with ESS 9038 will win specs most times unless badly implemented. But anyway, this is a moot point because each will have their prefered sound signature. I’m glad you are happy with your Sonica. I’m not surpriced it sounds great. Oppo always made great devices. As I wrote before, I almost bought it myself. I would probably have owned one unless Oppo wouldn’t have closed business. It's very simple to me. all other factors aside, a DAC that has a better DNR/SNR/THD is a superior DAC... it really is that simple. Now the rest of the picture is a function of the quality of the analog design, any "tricks" played in filtering, and a purely subjective "feeling". We then get into differences that people describe in esoteric terns, but things you can measure on a BENCH with a spectrum analyzer... those are real differences. Noise multiples throughout a system, so, things that start out small can get bigger.
|
|
|
Post by aswiss on Jan 24, 2020 20:11:33 GMT -5
I received my new hifi player Zidoo UHD 2000 I hope not to have "yet" compatibility problems with the RMC-1. I did not have time to install it but. I noticed in unboxing that it is heavier than the rmc-1 ...? I install it tomorrow I have the Z9S, No Issues with the RMC-1 so far.
|
|
|
Post by tom9933 on Jan 24, 2020 20:13:39 GMT -5
Rob, I upgraded to an RMC-1 from a Denon 8500 after Axpona 19. The sound improvement of the corrected (audyssey with the Harmon curve through the pro app) 8500 vs the out of the box RMC was very dramatic. Did you limit Audyssey correction or run it full range? Did you also compare your Audyssey calibration vs no Audyssey. Bass management but no Room EQ is the apples-to-apples comparison I'd want too hear about. Audyssey can throw a blanket over the audio at times. My calibrations have been as follows Pioneer - internal calbiration for full range, subs on an an external MiniDSP Denon - initial was with the Denon full range curve, it sounded better than the previous setup on the Pioneer. I then blew out the tweeter in both front speakers in the Revels... I never heard any clipping and it was not that loud Talking to the Revel dealer he mentioned Dr. Floyds work and so I limited the correction on all channels in the app to 500hz and below. I think I tried it without Audyssey when I first set it up but I didn't do any critical listening in that mode. RMC-1 - only level and distance calibrations
|
|
|
Post by donh50 on Jan 24, 2020 22:24:48 GMT -5
Sort of off-topic for the RMC-1, but the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of a converter (ADC or DAC) as set by quantization noise is roughly 6N+1.8 dB where N is the number of bits. That noise is from the sampling process itself, so "normal" circuit noise will in general reduce that slightly, and of course there are nonlinearities (distortion) to consider that will also reduce the SNR. The ratio of maximum signal to the noise floor, the spurious-free dynamic range or SFDR, goes as 9N dB. If you have seen frequency plots of DAC outputs you may have noticed a single signal (the test tone) and the noise floor that looks like "grass" beneath. The range (for an ideal converter) from the maximum signal peak to the "grass" is ~9N dB or about 144 dB for an ideal 16-bit DAC. If you take the signal tone and compare to all the noise combined (in RMS fashion) you get the SNR ~ 6N+1.8 or about 98 dB for a 16-bit DAC. That is for a single sine wave; multiple sine waves or different waveforms will have a slightly different result. See e.g IEEE Standard 1241 (I helped write it). The derivation of SNR is not too hard; the derivation of SFDR is more complex and closed-form solution a challenge. For an introduction (but not derivations) you can look at www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/digital-audio-converters-dacs-fundamentals.1927/ or many other sources. I could list credentials but (a) who cares, (b) not sure how you'd want me to prove them, and (c) you can look at the IEEE and other standards instead of taking my or anybody's word for it. Plus that still leaves open the question (and debate) about what humans can perceive as the maximum dynamic range. Back on-topic: It sounds like a FW update that solves most problems is imminent. Has there been any indication when Dirac Live might be running? Curious - Don
|
|
|
Post by mick on Jan 24, 2020 22:56:00 GMT -5
I would also be quite interested to hear about what the company in Germany you mentioned upgrades on the Marantz. (Obviously they believe there's a lot wrong with it... otherwise it wouldn't need to be modified after you purchase it.) Do come back when you've had plenty of time with your DTS:X Pro/Auromatic 2.0 featured Marantz AV8805 and give us a review. Surprise by your dig there Keith, doesn't mean there is a lot wrong with the Marantz at all, there is always room for improvements even for the RMC-1.
|
|
|
Post by nospam on Jan 24, 2020 23:51:23 GMT -5
Keith, That was quite a rant on MQA. I don't disagree. Just way out of the scope of my point, which was to provide multiple formats from a single master and to encourage folks to just listen. My experience with 2L are some great recordings on Pure Audio Blu-rays, especially in Auro3D and Atmos. I had no idea that they had adopted MQA and were selling online. Regardless, Morten Lindberg (who owns and runs 2L and is nominated for 2 Grammys Sunday) has credentials that put you and I to shame. He can clearly cite artistic intent in regards to his use of MQA. I don't give much care about "hi-res" codecs to be honest. It's all about the master/mastering. I recognized that I was worrying way to much about the electronics when its all just a means for enjoying the content. Optimizing the room is much more important than codecs or even the audio processor. Who has the time, energy, and desire to go through all of those unnecessary steps you've outlined? You shouldn't have the time either... just sayin' 😉 These FREE test-bench files have been made available for users to compare for themselves long before MQA came along. I'll bet you don't detect any differences between the method you describe and their PCM/FLAC files. I haven't seen anyone cry foul before. Let's simply ignore MQA (the Emo doesn't unfold it, correct) for now. I just want people to listen for themselves. Differences are so minute its not worth squabbling over. JMO I would also have some serious concerns about "from the same mastered source". For example, you may assume that the Red Book CD layer, and the DSD layer, on a certain hybrid SACD come from the same master... But you have no real assurance that they weren't either processed differently - or deliberately tweaked to sound slightly different. Likewise, I would not necessarily believe that copies of downloads, purchased or downloaded in different formats, haven't been "individually adjusted" either.
At a minimum, for the most accurate comparison, I would want to "create" the two copies myself, using a known high-quality conversion program. Note that every conversion tends to result in a tiny measurable difference... although often not an audible one. (This is even more true for PCM and DSD... since the formats themselves are so different a "bit perfect" conversion in either direction is not actually possible.) So the fairest comparison would be to start with something at really high quality... Then, using a high quality conversion program, convert it to both 24/96k PCM and DSD, and compare those. That way you know that both started from the same "master", and both have been through a single conversion, using the same conversion program. This is probably as close as an end user can ever come to a proper "comparison of equals". (Otherwise you're just basing your conclusions on your best guess about what you believe the original probably sounded like.)
Citing www.2l.no/hires/ as an example of MQA encoding also brings up a few interesting questions.... This is a good source for content for comparisons (including MQA). www.2l.no/hires/
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Jan 25, 2020 5:04:09 GMT -5
Yes this is true however two words "change control". If Emotiva has a FW product that has gone through proper beta testing then it is the one that should be released without alteration. Releasing 1.8 without comprehensively tested changes added to 1.7.6 will just generate a tonne of bad press/noise on this and other forums which Emotiva doesn't need (imagine these minor changes start bricking units). Someone else said it on this forum, if you have some smaller changes post 1.8.....add them, then reissue for beta and finally release as 1.8.1. I have seen so many disasters where strict change control hasn't been followed ie "while Im here I will just add/fix this" or people just diverge from the originally drafted change plan etc. Hopefully Emotiva have instituted SW dev industry practices. Looking forward to 1.8! Understand the trepidation . Maybe look at it this rather skewed way - say one of the problems they are still addressing[ we don't know what specifically] is a check sum code that wont let you download if somethings awry in the code subsequently bricking the RMC1 ? That is something worth waiting for Especially if its shipping from another continent there have been too many shippings back to home base.. One can hope.. I agree that smaller releases is the logical thing to do though ; having survived the cary11a where things went backwards with some firmwares ; less chance of the 1.5 > 1.7 revision going skew whiff
|
|
|
Post by jim80z on Jan 25, 2020 7:55:14 GMT -5
Understand the trepidation . Maybe look at it this rather skewed way - say one of the problems they are still addressing[ we don't know what specifically] is a check sum code that wont let you download if somethings awry in the code subsequently bricking the RMC1 ? That is something worth waiting for Especially if its shipping from another continent there have been too many shippings back to home base.. One can hope.......... I hear you but those sorts of things I see as core/base items (not enhancements). If thats what is happening then I feel sorry for the Beta Testers
|
|
|
Post by aswiss on Jan 25, 2020 20:36:35 GMT -5
I would also be quite interested to hear about what the company in Germany you mentioned upgrades on the Marantz. (Obviously they believe there's a lot wrong with it... otherwise it wouldn't need to be modified after you purchase it.) Maybe the SQ will be at the RMC level? who knows ? I'm still looking for testimonials ... but first I have to take care of the RMC, I'm divided but I think I'm going to abandon the Emotiva because it will never have Auro 3D I am one of the first users of 'Auro and I miss him very much. it is becoming a criterion more and more demanded by the buyers of 16 channel processor. And even if the 8805 does not arrive at the RMC SQ it has all the functionality and stability that the RMC will never have! I do not expect much from 1.8 just a little thought to silence the critics but no evolution of functionality. What I don't understand. Why did you buy the RMC-1?
For me it was always clear that Auro is not available with the RMC-1 (to be honest, I'm happy about it).
I can somehow understand that you are not happy with the RMC-1 - there are issues, hopefully all known today and soon fixed, and I also had days, where I really was "not amused" with the box.
I read the forum carefully and did a test session in a homecinema, before I was sure to order one - and it was because of SQ - this is my main feature. You could easily find out everything before you buy the RMC-1, even my Seller informed me about the current state back then and that it would take some time get everything fixed (Yes, I know we are still waiting).
But Auro is your demand, not a demand or criteria of the market. The only reason why so many (specially in Europe) ask for or buy an Auro 3D AV is because of the Cross Upmixer.
Some owner of homecinemas I know, have all kicked Auro already out and went back to the standard Atmos/DTS.X Setup (and Speaker Layout). Auro is for sure not the holy grail.
I don't expect evolution in functionality - once Dirac is available and the issues are fixed - there is not more I would expect.
When I read your posts, you should sell your RMC-1 and get one of those D&M products with everything in, you expect from a good AV Processor - because SQ is not important for you.
@keithl
|
|