Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,262
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Aug 9, 2010 17:58:13 GMT -5
If you want bells and whistles, the Yamaha. I have a RX-V2700. But you will only have 60 - 70 real Watts per channel. If you want zero Watts messing up the processing, take the XMC. Just add the amp of choice. XPR-7 maybe? Only like 6 x more...
|
|
|
Post by BillBauman on Aug 9, 2010 19:29:57 GMT -5
If you want bells and whistles, the Yamaha. I have a RX-V2700. But you will only have 60 - 70 real Watts per channel. If you want zero Watts messing up the processing, take the XMC. Just add the amp of choice. XPR-7 maybe? Only like 6 x more... I just wrote this sort of scathing response to this, then I realized, are you saying 6x more cost, or by using the XPR-7 you'd get 6x more power?
|
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
Post by jamrock on Aug 9, 2010 19:57:48 GMT -5
"Hello from Germany . Whats better Yamaha RX-A3000 www.yamaha.com/yec/AVENTAGE.html or Emotiva XMC-1? ?? best regards" (1). One is a receiver and the other is a pre/pro. (2). One is an actual product (RX-A3000), the other is a concept (XMC-1). In order to have a honest comparison and discussion based on merit, you'll need 2 similar, in production products. Otherwise, you'll just have useless, endless, subjective and even dishonest speculation! jamrock
|
|
|
Post by ghstudio on Aug 9, 2010 20:47:58 GMT -5
In order to have a honest comparison and discussion based on merit, you'll need 2 similar, in production products. Otherwise, you'll just have useless, endless, subjective and even dishonest speculation!jamrock Sounds like an absolutely perfect topic for this board....we'll probably have 12 pages of comments in two days. Sorry LC....I just could not resist....
|
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,495
|
Post by LCSeminole on Aug 9, 2010 21:02:04 GMT -5
No, not another 12 pages in 2 days thread! ;D
Now back on topic, "Jamrock" had mentioned early in this thread about, "active HDMI" so his wife could watch TV without starting up the home theater. Is this a regular feature on upper line processors and receivers? Sometimes you just don't need the whole system turned on, especially at night if the kids or wife are trying to sleep and just need the TV speakers.
|
|
|
Post by Spiky on Aug 9, 2010 21:51:05 GMT -5
It's gonna have to be to appease the non-techie group. I see no reason to worry about passthrough unless it messes with a BD signal, but plenty will have other reasons to want it.
|
|
ntrain42
Emo VIPs
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home before breakfast!
Posts: 2,969
|
Post by ntrain42 on Aug 10, 2010 15:36:20 GMT -5
So did I read correctly that the XMC-1 is going to have the SAME bass management as the UMC-1(in other words the LFE 11 band EQ function will be basically WORTHLESS for 2 channel audio)?? That would REALLY SUCK. If that is the case, then regular independant channel's EQ function needs to have MORE low frequency EQ points available. The 31/63/125hz points just dont cut it for good fine tuning ability...................
|
|
Lonnie
Emo Staff
admin
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
Posts: 6,999
|
Post by Lonnie on Aug 10, 2010 15:47:43 GMT -5
So did I read correctly that the XMC-1 is going to have the SAME bass management as the UMC-1(in other words the LFE 11 band EQ function will be basically WORTHLESS for 2 channel audio)?? That would REALLY SUCK. If that is the case, then regular independant channel's EQ function needs to have MORE low frequency EQ points available. The 31/63/125hz points just dont cut it for good fine tuning ability................... Think about this for moment. 31, 63 and 125 are set at 1 octave intervals. The Q on the EQ bands for the bass is 1, which means it affects 1 ocatave above and below the center frequency. So those three bands will actually affect and control frequencies from 15.5 to 250hz. So the entire band is covered.
|
|
|
Post by ghstudio on Aug 10, 2010 16:13:00 GMT -5
Great....of course you could just have one setting and it would cover all those frequencies too.
The purpose of room EQ is to boost or cut the volume where it's needed and especially, to smooth out the bass response which has many room introduced peaks and valleys that are far far less than 1 octave wide.
There are really two types of equalization....there is the type you find on some car radios...rock, folk, news, etc which tailor a curve to boost or cut certain frequencies so that the content sounds better to a user (e.g boost the bass in rock)......and then there is what most of us expected from a processor such as the UMC-1, room equalization, which is quite different. Equalization such as provided by Audyssey and we thought, Emoq, is meant to correct for peaks and valleys in the room to flatten the curve so we hear what the audio engineer heard when he recorded the material. It's intent is not to color the material, but to make surgical cuts in peaks and surgical boosts in valleys created by the acoustics in the room.....flat response so to speak.
Given what I know about bass equalization aimed at flattening the bass response in a room, you need very narrow filters that are precisely placed, which is why most sub eq's use parametric EQ's where you can move the center frequency around and then vary the range of the boost/cut. Emoq doesn't do that...it boosts or cuts the bass in a very general/gross way....sort of like a tone control that gives more deep bass or mid bass. Think of it as a sub with three knobs on the back to boost/cut each one of those frequency ranges. yes, you can make the sub sound better, but you are really not flattening the response curve because if you cut a narrow peak, you also cut the frequencies around it which don't need to be, and shouldn't be cut.
Maybe we're talking apples and oranges here....maybe my expectation of bass EQ is different from Emoq's intent in offering EQ. My expectation was that Emoq would provide bass response smoothing (room eq)....not a broad tone control. I think that the UMC sub eq has 8 bands in the same frequency range and that gives more control than just 3 bands.
I agree with the need for at least the same number of bands in the bass range for all speakers, if the eq is done based on the eq settings for each speaker....rather than doing all the sub eq'ing thru the sub eq. At least by doing this, one could manually transfer the automatic sub settings determined by Emoq setup to the other speakers so all the sound gets the same, needed correction.
|
|
Lonnie
Emo Staff
admin
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
Posts: 6,999
|
Post by Lonnie on Aug 10, 2010 16:40:30 GMT -5
Great....of course you could just have one setting and it would cover all those frequencies too. The purpose of room EQ is to boost or cut the volume where it's needed and especially, to smooth out the bass response which has many room introduced peaks and valleys that are far far less than 1 octave wide. There are really two types of equalization....there is the type you find on some car radios...rock, folk, news, etc which tailor a curve to boost or cut certain frequencies so that the content sounds better to a user......and then there is what most of us expect from a processor which is quite different. Equalization such as Audyssey and we thought, Emoq, is meant to correct for peaks and valleys in the room to flatten the curve so we hear what the audio engineer heard when he recorded the material. Given what I know about bass equalization TO FLATTEN THE BASS IN A ROOM, you need very narrow filters that are precisely placed. Emoq doesn't do that...it boosts or cuts the bass in a very general way....sort of like a tone control that gives more deep bass or mid bass. Maybe we're talking apples and oranges here....maybe my expectation of bass EQ is different from Emoq's intent in offering EQ. I'm looking for bass response smoothing....not a tone control. I understand what you are saying but from an application stand point in relation to the end user. A narrow band EQ is virtually useless to the majority. Very few have the ability to generate a narrow band FFT to generate an RTA. Even fewer fully understand what they are looking at when they see one. It has been my experience over the years that when given a narrow band EQ most users will over EQ the system trying to correct for every anomoly without consideration to the interaction of the bands due to the Q of the system. While this may be useful to you, we looked at it from the start as being overly complicated for the majority of end users and decided to keep it simple so everyone could taylor the sound to their particular needs without having to resort to utilizing additional gear. So in respect to the correcting room anomolies, no it was not intended to do that. It was intended to allow the end user to taylor the sound field with a little tighter degree of accuracy than a simple bass and treble controls. For your particular applicaiton I would recommend an external dedicated bass EQ.
|
|
ntrain42
Emo VIPs
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home before breakfast!
Posts: 2,969
|
Post by ntrain42 on Aug 10, 2010 16:54:20 GMT -5
So did I read correctly that the XMC-1 is going to have the SAME bass management as the UMC-1(in other words the LFE 11 band EQ function will be basically WORTHLESS for 2 channel audio)?? That would REALLY SUCK. If that is the case, then regular independant channel's EQ function needs to have MORE low frequency EQ points available. The 31/63/125hz points just dont cut it for good fine tuning ability................... Think about this for moment. 31, 63 and 125 are set at 1 octave intervals. The Q on the EQ bands for the bass is 1, which means it affects 1 ocatave above and below the center frequency. So those three bands will actually affect and control frequencies from 15.5 to 250hz. So the entire band is covered. The problem is the center points and the fact that the Q isn't adjustable. If I have a significant natural dip at say around 50hz and a frequency bump at around 70-80hz its really next to impossible to get a good flat response with the limited fixed bands and preset Q. And then add to the fact that if I need to cross over the mains with a highpass at say 80-90hz and let the sub handle the frequencies below..............see what Im getting at here? Even with good software and a dedicated RTA I just cannot get a good flat response outta what is offered out of the main channel EQ bands. I mean if it really was that simple and easy, then why have a dedicated sub EQ with 11 full bands from what? 22-220hz roughly, but then only be able to use it for movies which IMO really is alot less critical than serious 2 channel music listening? Its like a teaser having a nice multiband sub EQ and not being able to use it for 2 channel music(where in reality its needed most) to get a really good dial in for the subs.
|
|
ntrain42
Emo VIPs
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home before breakfast!
Posts: 2,969
|
Post by ntrain42 on Aug 10, 2010 17:06:23 GMT -5
While this may be useful to you, we looked at it from the start as being overly complicated for the majority of end users and decided to keep it simple so everyone could taylor the sound to their particular needs without having to resort to utilizing additional gear. So in respect to the correcting room anomolies, no it was not intended to do that. It was intended to allow the end user to taylor the sound field with a little tighter degree of accuracy than a simple bass and treble controls. For your particular applicaiton I would recommend an external dedicated bass EQ. I mean if this was the case, then why implement a dedicated 11 band sub eq to begin with, especially when it can only be used in multichannel applications? I mean LF effects from booms and explosions for movies isn't what really needs critical fine tuning on the sub channel. But music? DIfferent story. Im sure your right that alot of users wont be able to use it to its full advantage, or know how to, but then as shown here on the board, there are still quite a few people who will and do. More and more people use an RTA or RTA software with their computers to be able to tune their systems to a much higher standard. I mean for me, one of the big selling points on the UMC-1 was the fact that it had what appeared to be a really nice independant channel EQ and Xover. When I called and inquired about it originally, I was even told that the sub EQ WILL work and be functional for 2 channel music, only to find out weeks later that wasn't the case. Really is a big bummer. I mean even mainstream products now from companies like Onkyo, Pioneer, Denon etc. incorperate dedicated sub EQs/Xovers with at least 5-6 bands of sub equalization that will work for both HT and 2 channel music with independant settings. Can you understand the logic from our perspective?
|
|
Lonnie
Emo Staff
admin
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
Posts: 6,999
|
Post by Lonnie on Aug 10, 2010 17:07:28 GMT -5
Think about this for moment. 31, 63 and 125 are set at 1 octave intervals. The Q on the EQ bands for the bass is 1, which means it affects 1 ocatave above and below the center frequency. So those three bands will actually affect and control frequencies from 15.5 to 250hz. So the entire band is covered. The problem is the center points and the fact that the Q isn't adjustable. If I have a significant natural dip at say around 50hz and a frequency bump at around 70-80hz its really next to impossible to get a good flat response with the limited fixed bands and preset Q. And then add to the fact that if I need to cross over the mains with a highpass at say 80-90hz and let the sub handle the frequencies below..............see what Im getting at here? Even with good software and a dedicated RTA I just cannot get a good flat response outta what is offered out of the main channel EQ bands. I mean if it really was that simple and easy, then why have a dedicated sub EQ with 11 full bands from what? 22-220hz roughly, but then only be able to use it for movies which IMO really is alot less critical than serious 2 channel music listening? Its like a teaser having a nice multiband sub EQ and not being able to use it for 2 channel music(where in reality its needed most) to get a really good dial in for the subs. If you have a natural dip at 50hz then you are dealing with a null point in the room and it wouldn't matter how many bands of EQ you had you would never be able to overcome this. Which is a prime example of what I was referring too. You may be able to run an RTA and yes if you know what you are looking at and dealing with, having additional bands of EQ can be very useful. But what is the percentage of people who have the gear and the technical where with all to set it up correctly? Truthfully, not many and that is why it is done the way it is. In your case like GH I would recommend an external dedicated sub EQ to work in conjunction with the UMC. If that is not a desired option, no problem. With the extended return policy on the UMC you have nothing to loose. Obviously I would like for you and everyone to keep theirs, but I understand the reality of the situation and know that the UMC will not suit everyones needs.
|
|
Lonnie
Emo Staff
admin
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
Posts: 6,999
|
Post by Lonnie on Aug 10, 2010 17:12:14 GMT -5
While this may be useful to you, we looked at it from the start as being overly complicated for the majority of end users and decided to keep it simple so everyone could taylor the sound to their particular needs without having to resort to utilizing additional gear. So in respect to the correcting room anomolies, no it was not intended to do that. It was intended to allow the end user to taylor the sound field with a little tighter degree of accuracy than a simple bass and treble controls. For your particular applicaiton I would recommend an external dedicated bass EQ. I mean if this was the case, then why implement a dedicated 11 band sub eq to begin with, especially when it can only be used in multichannel applications? I mean LF effects from booms and explosions for movies isn't what really needs critical fine tuning on the sub channel. But music? DIfferent story. Im sure your right that alot of users wont be able to use it to its full advantage, or know how to, but then as shown here on the board, there are still quite a few people who will and do. More and more people use an RTA or RTA software with their computers to be able to tune their systems to a much higher standard. I mean for me, one of the big selling points on the UMC-1 was the fact that it had what appeared to be a really nice independant channel EQ and Xover. When I called and inquired about it originally, I was even told that the sub EQ WILL work and be functional for 2 channel music, only to find out weeks later that wasn't the case. Really is a big bummer. I mean even mainstream products now from companies like Onkyo, Pioneer, Denon etc. incorperate dedicated sub EQs/Xovers with at least 5-6 bands of sub equalization that will work for both HT and 2 channel music with independant settings. Can you understand the logic from our perspective? I can absolutely understand what you are saying and it is something we will certainly take into consideration on future generations but at this stage in the game for hte UMC and probably for XMC. Developing a user friendly interface to address this is a huge undertaking.
|
|
|
Post by Topend on Aug 10, 2010 17:14:55 GMT -5
I have the SMS-1 for my sub EQ and it is an easy to use effective room correction tool. It sends out a frequency sweep, a mic measures the room response and the result can be seen on the display. For beginners it can be auto corrected, for average user it can be manually setup using on-screen EQ sliders with a good spread of frequency intervals and for the advanced user the EQ sliders can be moved up or down in frequency (left or right on the screen) to coincide with a peak and then adjust the Q to match the width of the peak. The Q can also be adjusted so it does not interfere with another frequency which may be close.
This would be a great system to be integrated to any AVR/pre-pro, not just Emotiva. The user can see the results of their efforts on the screen and it is something anyone can master.
Dave.
EDIT: I should add that an AVR/prepro version of this would have to cover a wider freq range than the SMS-1, say 20hz to 20khz.
|
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
Post by jamrock on Aug 10, 2010 17:23:18 GMT -5
Hey Lonnie: While you continue to swim/dive in this sea of base management discussions, (very informative i might say), the next time you come up for air, can you say a word on active HDMI possibility. My wife is intimidated by having to use a 7.1 system to watch the cooking channel or the home & garden channel. Plus is also 'green' to be able to save energy by only using the components we need at any one time.
Using a UPA-1, UMC-1 and other unnecessary components to see how to bake a cake or grill a steak perfectly, is irresponsible for ecology's sake.
Let's be green and say: Yes, definitely!
jamrock
|
|
ntrain42
Emo VIPs
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home before breakfast!
Posts: 2,969
|
Post by ntrain42 on Aug 10, 2010 17:29:15 GMT -5
The problem is the center points and the fact that the Q isn't adjustable. If I have a significant natural dip at say around 50hz and a frequency bump at around 70-80hz its really next to impossible to get a good flat response with the limited fixed bands and preset Q. And then add to the fact that if I need to cross over the mains with a highpass at say 80-90hz and let the sub handle the frequencies below..............see what Im getting at here? Even with good software and a dedicated RTA I just cannot get a good flat response outta what is offered out of the main channel EQ bands. I mean if it really was that simple and easy, then why have a dedicated sub EQ with 11 full bands from what? 22-220hz roughly, but then only be able to use it for movies which IMO really is alot less critical than serious 2 channel music listening? Its like a teaser having a nice multiband sub EQ and not being able to use it for 2 channel music(where in reality its needed most) to get a really good dial in for the subs. If you have a natural dip at 50hz then you are dealing with a null point in the room and it wouldn't matter how many bands of EQ you had you would never be able to overcome this. Which is a prime example of what I was referring too. You may be able to run an RTA and yes if you know what you are looking at and dealing with, having additional bands of EQ can be very useful. But what is the percentage of people who have the gear and the technical where with all to set it up correctly? Truthfully, not many and that is why it is done the way it is. In your case like GH I would recommend an external dedicated sub EQ to work in conjunction with the UMC. If that is not a desired option, no problem. With the extended return policy on the UMC you have nothing to loose. Obviously I would like for you and everyone to keep theirs, but I understand the reality of the situation and know that the UMC will not suit everyones needs. I understand, I was just using an example of a potential scenario. As for the return policy, yep, I know its in place. Im just one of those who would rather see a solution put in place vs. returning something. As for a dedicated bass EQ, I know there are solutions, in my main 2 channel setup I use dedicated Rane EQ's and Xovers to tune the speakers to the rooms environment. But in the HT/casual music setup I have, less gear ='s better for room aesthetics, ease of use. Basically I was hoping for a single processor solution to "do it all". I mean, question for ya: Can more or adjustable EQ points be programmed into the main channel EQ bands? That would be a workable solution for many Im sure if its possible. As for the XMC or future processors, I cant really see it being a big problem at all having the bass EQ channel being summed AFTER the EQ/xover stage unlike the current UMC-1. Or am I missing something here?
|
|
ntrain42
Emo VIPs
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home before breakfast!
Posts: 2,969
|
Post by ntrain42 on Aug 10, 2010 17:31:02 GMT -5
I have the SMS-1 for my sub EQ and it is an easy to use effective room correction tool. It sends out a frequency sweep, a mic measures the room response and the result can be seen on the display. For beginners it can be auto corrected, for average user it can be manually setup using on-screen EQ sliders with a good spread of frequency intervals and for the advanced user the EQ sliders can be moved up or down in frequency (left or right on the screen) to coincide with a peak and then adjust the Q to match the width of the peak. The Q can also be adjusted so it does not interfere with another frequency which may be close. This would be a great system to be integrated to any AVR/pre-pro, not just Emotiva. The user can see the results of their efforts on the screen and it is something anyone can master. Dave. EDIT: I should add that an AVR/prepro version of this would have to cover a wider freq range than the SMS-1, say 20hz to 20khz. Basically the UMC-1 is able to do what the SMS can do, but for multichannel use only. The big hitch is that its basically non functional for 2 channel use.
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Aug 10, 2010 17:40:45 GMT -5
I have the SMS-1 for my sub EQ and it is an easy to use effective room correction tool. It sends out a frequency sweep, a mic measures the room response and the result can be seen on the display. For beginners it can be auto corrected, for average user it can be manually setup using on-screen EQ sliders with a good spread of frequency intervals and for the advanced user the EQ sliders can be moved up or down in frequency (left or right on the screen) to coincide with a peak and then adjust the Q to match the width of the peak. The Q can also be adjusted so it does not interfere with another frequency which may be close. This would be a great system to be integrated to any AVR/pre-pro, not just Emotiva. The user can see the results of their efforts on the screen and it is something anyone can master. Dave. EDIT: I should add that an AVR/prepro version of this would have to cover a wider freq range than the SMS-1, say 20hz to 20khz. Basically the UMC-1 is able to do what the SMS can do, but for multichannel use only. The big hitch is that its basically non functional for 2 channel use. The UMC-1 is not able to do what the SMS-1 does, as far as I know. The SMS-1 is a parametric equalizer and the UMC-1 does not have that feature, does it? Also, why would the UMC-1 have multichannel adjustment but not be able to do the same thing in 2 channels? Wouldn't you just do the same thing as you do for multichannels but for only the two?
|
|
|
Post by Topend on Aug 10, 2010 18:22:47 GMT -5
I have the SMS-1 for my sub EQ and it is an easy to use effective room correction tool. It sends out a frequency sweep, a mic measures the room response and the result can be seen on the display. For beginners it can be auto corrected, for average user it can be manually setup using on-screen EQ sliders with a good spread of frequency intervals and for the advanced user the EQ sliders can be moved up or down in frequency (left or right on the screen) to coincide with a peak and then adjust the Q to match the width of the peak. The Q can also be adjusted so it does not interfere with another frequency which may be close. This would be a great system to be integrated to any AVR/pre-pro, not just Emotiva. The user can see the results of their efforts on the screen and it is something anyone can master. Dave. EDIT: I should add that an AVR/prepro version of this would have to cover a wider freq range than the SMS-1, say 20hz to 20khz. Basically the UMC-1 is able to do what the SMS can do, but for multichannel use only. The big hitch is that its basically non functional for 2 channel use. I am sorry to say you are wrong. The UMC-1 does not send a frequency sweep, does not have as many EQ bands (within its range), does not have an adjustable Q, does does have the ability to alter the frequency a slider adjusts and it does not display room correction results on a screen for the user to see. Dave.
|
|