|
|
Post by yves on Sept 4, 2013 18:26:29 GMT -5
jerrin,
If it's going to have 9.2 or 11.2 channel output, the Sabre ES9018 would be incompatible for use because it's only an 8-channel chip.
|
|
|
|
Post by sagasa on Sept 5, 2013 9:17:56 GMT -5
Maybe they can add SIRI capabilities so you don't have to call customer service every time there is a failure. That will be my futuristic high end processor.  |
|
|
|
Post by bolle on Sept 5, 2013 10:08:09 GMT -5
One cloned Mini-Lonnie leased for one year with every XMC-1...  |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs 
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Sept 5, 2013 10:13:25 GMT -5
jerrin, If it's going to have 9.2 or 11.2 channel output, the Sabre ES9018 would be incompatible for use because it's only an 8-channel chip. Plus SQ is more a function of the analog implementation AFTER the DAC than the actual DAC itself. While the 9018 is an excellent dac (and the flavor of the month), I have heard great sound from lesser designs due to great analog after it. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,276
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 5, 2013 10:44:31 GMT -5
Actually, the number of channels isn't a limitation per-se (you could simply use two of them, or six of them in stereo mode, or whatever; Sabre also makes several DAC chips with different configurations). Your comment of "flavor of the month" is closer to the mark. It is indeed true that the implementation is usually more of a determining factor than the DAC chip itself; this is true both of the analog circuitry after the DAC and of the power supply and clocking that run the DAC chip itself. Sabre has done a great marketing job in convincing lots of people that "the DAC chip is all"; the reality there is that the Sabre chips do cost a few dollars more than most others, and one of the things that money buys a company that uses Sabre chips in their product is the perception that it adds value. (Some customers will buy a product because it has a Sabre DAC in it, and they are convinced that this means it will sound better.) The reality is that the Sabre DACs work well, but are actually very dependent on the surrounding circuitry - like any other DAC chip, or possibly even somewhat more so - and so there are good and bad products with Sabre chips in them. Beyond any of that, Sabre DAC chips are "voiced" to yield a specific sound; all else aside, they do have a subtle yet distinctive sound. (This is no secret; they haven't mentioned this lately, but it used to be a selling point in their early literature.) Personally, I find their voicing pleasant with most music, but it is not neutral, and we prefer to use DACs that are neutral in our products. (The voicing is in the design of the digital filter; the frequency response of any good DAC, including a Sabre, is exemplary.) Since our goal with the XMC-1 is neutrality and accuracy, as befits a true audiophile product, we aren't going to even think about putting "a flavor" (of the month, or otherwise) in it  jerrin, If it's going to have 9.2 or 11.2 channel output, the Sabre ES9018 would be incompatible for use because it's only an 8-channel chip. Plus SQ is more a function of the analog implementation AFTER the DAC than the actual DAC itself. While the 9018 is an excellent dac (and the flavor of the month), I have heard great sound from lesser designs due to great analog after it. |
|
|
|
Post by The Mad Norseman on Sept 5, 2013 12:46:55 GMT -5
novisnick typed (in part):
"Someone may need to look at the Yamaha RX-V 3020 with all its goodies. It too needs a few things like XLRs and a couple more I'm sure yall will see. But if you look deep at it, it is an 11.2 with exturnal
amps , equalization to each speaker, etc. All in all a pretty good starting point for improvement.Just saying...".
True, but the Yammy 3020 is an AVR, not a surround processor by itself.
A truer comparison would be the new Yamaha CX-A5000 11.2 channel surround processor - just out last month that looks pretty nice at a street price of $2500, though I'll bet it can be had for a bit less...
But its also true that an AVR (like the '3020, or '3030) could indeed serve as a nice surround processor also, and even use its built in amps for some of the surround channels, and then drive the five mains with a beefy XPR-5 or something?, now that would be cool too!
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,276
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 5, 2013 14:29:26 GMT -5
I don't have any experience with either of those Yamaha's in particular, but USUALLY the reason you use a pre/pro instead of a receiver is to avoid the compromises that almost always come with receivers. First off, you don't get something for nothing. When you buy a receiver, you are buying a processor AND amplifiers. So, if you're only using the processor, you paid for amps you're not using. (Putting it another way, if you buy a receiver for the same price as you would have spent on a separate pre/pro, you are getting a cheaper pre/pro and a cheaper amplifier.) Second, there are almost always serious compromises when you combine functions. The amplifiers that are included in most receivers aren't anywhere near as good as separate power amplifiers; sometimes the specs seem reasonable, but they simply don't sound very good; other times, even the specs (when you read them carefully) aren't very good. Amplifiers DO sound different, and the amplifiers in many receivers simply aren't very good. (They may be good enough if you just plan to use the amps in the receiver to run your surrounds.) Beyond that, using the same power supplies and chassis for the amplifiers and the processor may compromise the processor's sound as well. Third, you lose flexibility. With separates, you can choose the best pre/pro and the best amp separately. A good power amplifier is likely to remain useful for ten or even twenty years, because audio amplifiers really don't change, while a pre/pro is almost certain to become obsolete as newer video and audio formats are released. With separates, you can upgrade JUST the pre/pro when it's time. Some receivers offer "pre out" connectors for using a separate power amp if you decide to do so, but others do not (if you do decide to buy a receiver, be sure it has FULL pre outs for all channels - not just the fronts.) novisnick typed (in part): "Someone may need to look at the Yamaha RX-V 3020 with all its goodies. It too needs a few things like XLRs and a couple more I'm sure yall will see. But if you look deep at it, it is an 11.2 with exturnal
amps , equalization to each speaker, etc. All in all a pretty good starting point for improvement.Just saying...". True, but the Yammy 3020 is an AVR, not a surround processor by itself. A truer comparison would be the new Yamaha CX-A5000 11.2 channel surround processor - just out last month that looks pretty nice at a street price of $2500, though I'll bet it can be had for a bit less... But its also true that an AVR (like the '3020, or '3030) could indeed serve as a nice surround processor also, and even use its built in amps for some of the surround channels, and then drive the five mains with a beefy XPR-5 or something?, now that would be cool too! |
|
jerky
Minor Hero
Posts: 35
|
Post by jerky on Sept 5, 2013 17:35:05 GMT -5
The Marantz AV8801 looks to be a Premium Processor. From what I can tell it has everything you could ask for. The Price is its only downfall. To rich for my blood.
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Sept 5, 2013 17:39:54 GMT -5
Actually, the number of channels isn't a limitation per-se (you could simply use two of them, or six of them in stereo mode, or whatever; Sabre also makes several DAC chips with different configurations). Your comment of "flavor of the month" is closer to the mark. It is indeed true that the implementation is usually more of a determining factor than the DAC chip itself; this is true both of the analog circuitry after the DAC and of the power supply and clocking that run the DAC chip itself. Sabre has done a great marketing job in convincing lots of people that "the DAC chip is all"; the reality there is that the Sabre chips do cost a few dollars more than most others, and one of the things that money buys a company that uses Sabre chips in their product is the perception that it adds value. (Some customers will buy a product because it has a Sabre DAC in it, and they are convinced that this means it will sound better.) The reality is that the Sabre DACs work well, but are actually very dependent on the surrounding circuitry - like any other DAC chip, or possibly even somewhat more so - and so there are good and bad products with Sabre chips in them. Beyond any of that, Sabre DAC chips are "voiced" to yield a specific sound; all else aside, they do have a subtle yet distinctive sound. (This is no secret; they haven't mentioned this lately, but it used to be a selling point in their early literature.) Personally, I find their voicing pleasant with most music, but it is not neutral, and we prefer to use DACs that are neutral in our products. (The voicing is in the design of the digital filter; the frequency response of any good DAC, including a Sabre, is exemplary.) Since our goal with the XMC-1 is neutrality and accuracy, as befits a true audiophile product, we aren't going to even think about putting "a flavor" (of the month, or otherwise) in it Plus SQ is more a function of the analog implementation AFTER the DAC than the actual DAC itself. While the 9018 is an excellent dac (and the flavor of the month), I have heard great sound from lesser designs due to great analog after it. If you don't like the digital filters of the ES9018 then I have some great news for you. The ES9018 doesn't require that they be used. resonessencelabs.com/digital-filters |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2013 23:51:04 GMT -5
There are lots of examples of premium processor on the market, what emo's whole business model is, is giving us these premium products at cheaper prices.
Any well made unit should sound somewhat similar, any claims of it's superiority vs anything else are purely subjective at this point. Processors are pretty hard to do any kind of A/B test as there are so many options and some may have features that others don't (other than maybe direct mode but I'm sure that different in different units as well)
Just bring a good quality unit at a good price, thats all thats needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Sept 6, 2013 18:22:10 GMT -5
Implied with the comments on connectors and knobs, but "Build Quality" for the whole package. The XSP-1 with it's Tiffany connectors, nice controls, and robust collection of balanced and unbalanced ins & outs, sets a good mark for the XMC-1. Along with build quality comes "Reliability", which also belongs on the list. Nice post Keith.
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Sept 25, 2013 16:30:18 GMT -5
I like this thread and as a way of bumping it, here are my wishes for a processor. Don't shoot me for naming things that are not possible. Someone somewhere sometime decided it was a good idea to put a man on the moon which is called the Moon. (name the three bands I quoted in that last sentence....one tip: first band is Scottish)
1/ Should look and feel like the XPR amps!
2/ Should stack two 8-channel processors together to become one 16-channel processor.
3/ Should provide the opportunity to run either in 8-channel fully balanced mode (double circuitry) or in 16-channel using only balanced outputs.
4/ Should provide playback for Dolby Atmos
5/ Should be able to figure out which-isit and where-abouts of every speaker/sub so you could run in 15.1 or 12.4 as you wish and put the surround speakers where you can/want. I'd put nine stealth 88 speakers at ear level and four stealth 8 at ceiling height (+/- 45° off axis, 90° between them) plus three subs.
Hey, I can dream!
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Sept 30, 2013 13:48:43 GMT -5
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,276
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 30, 2013 14:51:57 GMT -5
I still haven't figured out what a lot of the claims they're making mean. Once we get past that, then we can move on to whether they work or not, and what they work with. For example, it seems like Auro3D is some new method for making synthesized 3D sound (and they claim it "works with all standards"); to me it just sounds like another non-standard way of doing DSP-synth surround sound. (Hey, maybe it works really great....) |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Sept 30, 2013 15:23:10 GMT -5
This Storm stuff is all hype, overpriced, aimed at an elite market, sold grudgingly through brick and mortar/ distributorships, relying on pro installers. They're aiming to sell to millionaires who have more money than time. There is a small market for such things, but you can have everything and more that they're hyping for a fraction of the cost with equipment available from Emotiva and other ID companies. I believe they're doomed to fail!
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Oct 1, 2013 15:48:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 5, 2013 18:27:53 GMT -5
At a msrp of $18,500 Ill take two! |
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Oct 6, 2013 15:10:01 GMT -5
I've been reading this interesting thread on the Datasat RS20i: www.avforums.com/forums/audio-processors-power-amps/1625856-datasat-rs20i-processor.htmlThe owners are very enthusiastic about the sound quality. It 'd better be, at that price... Though I can't help but think there's more in depth knowledge among users of Audyssey room correction and DSX or, say, the Denon AVP then about the Datasat. When you buy it, installation/setting is included. Makes sense (that price) but if you do it yourself, you get smarter in the process. Also noteworthy is how patient these owners are compared to some folks here regarding the XMC-1. It seems that Datasat and Barco worked together on a Barco cinema processor. Since Auro-3D is a Barco daughter, it is logical that the RS20i has Auro-3D decoding on board. BTW, I have read the Auro-3D "v3" paper. It says the full Auro-3D speaker layout is defined for up to 13.1 channels. In that case it uses 6.1 (with only one rear surround, it mixes the two normal rears together) and adds a height channel above each of the standard speakers plus one VOG (overhead). The Datasat can then handle three subs independently (from the one x.1 sub channel). I suggest Emotiva gets in touch with Dirac to help them get Auro-3D on board of the RMC-1. I'd settle for 10.2 (12-channel) for now. 6.1 plus Height speakers above the L+R main and L+R Surround. Two sub channels. I'd sum two subs for each SW output. Leave the 16-ch version for processor generation three. |
|
|
|
Post by audiosyndrome on Oct 6, 2013 18:18:33 GMT -5
It would be interesting to have some insight into what is going to differentiate the RMC-1 from the XMC-1. The 40% off card should make the RM afordable.
Russ
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 6, 2013 21:25:54 GMT -5
I've been reading this interesting thread on the Datasat RS20i: www.avforums.com/forums/audio-processors-power-amps/1625856-datasat-rs20i-processor.htmlThe owners are very enthusiastic about the sound quality. It 'd better be, at that price... Though I can't help but think there's more in depth knowledge among users of Audyssey room correction and DSX or, say, the Denon AVP then about the Datasat. When you buy it, installation/setting is included. Makes sense (that price) but if you do it yourself, you get smarter in the process. Also noteworthy is how patient these owners are compared to some folks here regarding the XMC-1. It seems that Datasat and Barco worked together on a Barco cinema processor. Since Auro-3D is a Barco daughter, it is logical that the RS20i has Auro-3D decoding on board. BTW, I have read the Auro-3D "v3" paper. It says the full Auro-3D speaker layout is defined for up to 13.1 channels. In that case it uses 6.1 (with only one rear surround, it mixes the two normal rears together) and adds a height channel above each of the standard speakers plus one VOG (overhead). The Datasat can then handle three subs independently (from the one x.1 sub channel). I suggest Emotiva gets in touch with Dirac to help them get Auro-3D on board of the RMC-1. I'd settle for 10.2 (12-channel) for now. 6.1 plus Height speakers above the L+R main and L+R Surround. Two sub channels. I'd sum two subs for each SW output. Leave the 16-ch version for processor generation three. The "bunch o channels" that the Datasat has, while it lends itself to new standards like Auro-3D, I believe that the additional channels are typically used in large private theaters, where you may have multiple subs, and multiple side surrounds, and multiple rears - where you need things like delay and more processing. The RS20i is a more expensive, "consumerized" version of the cinema only AP20 ( www.datasatdigital.com/cinema/products/ap20.php) I want to say the AP20 has an MSRP of like 7-8k, but it's only available to commercial cinemas. The Datasat RS20i is easily going into rooms costing 500k-1m+, done by high-end integrators. If you're spending 20k on a processor, you're also spending a lot of money on speakers lke Genelec. While I appreciate new codecs and their toys, I don't really believe that's the end-all-be-all with regards to extra channels. I don't necessarily equate lots of channels with reference, or vice versa. I'm not saying I disagree, just saying that the extra channels are a lower priority for me. |
|
