|
|
Post by monkumonku on May 27, 2015 10:06:53 GMT -5
It could be argued that Dan declared how the XMC-1 would be fully upgradable, and so why isn't the XMC-1 being upgraded to include Atmos and all the other features coming out. Well, that's like back in the 70's someone could have asked why isn't Chevy outfitting all their cars with 8-track players since that's the wave of the future? Just because a feature exists doesn't mean that Emo is obligated to throw it on the XMC-1. It depends on their judgment of the utility of that feature as it pertains to the product in question. Rather than continuing to harp endlessly about the lack of Atmos on the XMC-1, why not buy a product that already has that feature, eh? I honestly didn't take that statement as the XMC itself would be future proof but that future products based off that platform would be. But I fully understand why others only take that to mean the XMC itself would be upgradable. But that is the engineer in me who knows better.  I took it to mean the other interpretation, that the XMC-1 would be "future proof" rather than products subsequent to the XMC-1 but based on that platform being that way. That said, that does not necessarily mean it has to incorporate every single so-called advancement in technology. So many of these things fall by the wayside so for a product to include everything that comes out (for which in my opinion most of it is like you said, to keep the bottom line up and it's all about marketing, not about real sound improvement), either the cost would have to skyrocket and become prohibitive (or at least outside the originally intended market) or else they'd have to cut back in other areas to compensate. I think a lot of manufacturers of these models that change every quarter do the latter - they have the latest and greatest features, most of which the majority of people never use, but they skimp on the quality of the product. I'd rather have a robust product like the XMC-1 that does what it is supposed to do very well, rather than have bragging rights to some cheaply made product that has a bunch of features that are of little or no use to me. As new features prove themselves and get the bugs ironed out, then Emo could add them to the XMC-1. For those of us who don't have to have the latest and greatest right away, we'd benefit from implementing only proven features. And that I see has being something that would make the XMC-1 a product that could last us for 10-15 years. |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs 
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on May 27, 2015 10:10:57 GMT -5
For me the AV8802 was well worth the $1k premium as I am completely invested in Atmos and soon-to-be DTS:X. I use my theater for 99% movies and the audio difference compared to the XMC-1, whatever it may be, is simply irrelevant. 100% agree with the above statement for those interested/invested in those formats. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 10:13:01 GMT -5
For me the AV8802 was well worth the $1k premium as I am completely invested in Atmos and soon-to-be DTS:X. I use my theater for 99% movies and the audio difference compared to the XMC-1, whatever it may be, is simply irrelevant. what is the size of your HT? |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on May 27, 2015 10:23:22 GMT -5
Two channel rules!! Just gotta say it...  |
|
|
|
Post by sandiway on May 27, 2015 10:37:39 GMT -5
Could it be that these new formats will be the 3D glasses of the HDTV world? In other words, after the initial hype, consumers aren't convinced it's a must-have feature? I can't imagine that many consumers would be willing to purchase and install so many speakers. If so, support for these formats will just be a minor selling point unused by the vast majority.
Sandiway
|
|
|
|
Post by millst on May 27, 2015 10:54:25 GMT -5
People are probably looking at features like Atmos/Auro3D, Audyssey, video processing, triple-zone, etc. first. -tm For those folks the XMC should not even be on their radar. So any arguments against the XMC not having those features are just silly. That was basically the point I was trying to make: it's pointless to compare the slight difference in performance numbers when the overall feature set of the two units is so different. The decision will have already been made as performance will have a much smaller weighting compared to the other comparison points. Based on their features sets, the XMC-1 and AV8802 are so different that it seems like a waste of time [to me] to argue between the two. I know people like to do it because the 8802/7702 are in a similar price bracket, but it's like arguing Prius vs Wrangler. I hope I didn't steer the thread in that direction, which has nothing to do with the original topic. In a new thread, it might be interesting to compare the XMC-1 against the Anthem, Classe, Nad, etc. products since they are 7.x pre-pros. From what I've seen, the people that owns those just scoff at something at this price level so there isn't much insight. Maybe the Stereophile review will be enlightening. -tm |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 11:05:58 GMT -5
not true...I am an exact example
I had two choices
5.2.4 ATMOS which I already had setup with audyssey XT32 + subHT ( and some 2 channel...which is less than stellar with the denon)
or
7.2 XMC-1 with dirac (great with 2 channel as well)
to ME....the sound quality of the XMC-1 with dirac outweighed the advantage of ATMOS ...if i could have both (maybe the XMR-1?) I would go that route...but for now...sound quality (which was significant and is backed up by graphs and ETC graphs) is more important than 9 titles released on ATMOS...(and I was the biggest ATMOS promoter in these boards...so take that into account)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 11:10:19 GMT -5
For me the AV8802 was well worth the $1k premium as I am completely invested in Atmos and soon-to-be DTS:X. I use my theater for 99% movies and the audio difference compared to the XMC-1, whatever it may be, is simply irrelevant. what is the size of your HT? About 20' x 14'. Honestly, it is too small for the amount of equipment I am running... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 11:19:12 GMT -5
what is the size of your HT? About 20' x 14'. Honestly, it is too small for the amount of equipment I am running... bigger than mine though mine is 11x16 I felt that atmos lost its luster for me (well not luster but just its separation from 7.1) when I closed in the room from a large unfinished open basement......thats why i asked the size of yours |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on May 27, 2015 12:26:03 GMT -5
Did anyone else actually read the article? I read it weeks ago when I got my magazine and all I can say is that you don't get a much more glowing review. It even got compared to the $6500 Krell in terms of SQ (the Krell compares almost directly in the way of features to the XMC-1). If this review was written about the XMC-1 everyone here would be jumping up and down saying I told you so I told you so, it's THAT good. On the contrary, a great review of the Marantz can't be trusted because of all the money those magazine guys get from their advertisers.  Let's not forget Emotiva has advertised in every single issue of Sound & Vision for many years now. I guess those positive reviews they received also aren't really accurate because they must be biased based on Emotiva paying the bills eh? The fact is this new Marantz appears to be a great piece of gear. Whether the additional feature set is worth the asking price and the possibility of loosing the XMC-1 sound? Well, that's up to you, your budget, your room, your needs, and your listening habits. I think they are both fabulous pieces of equipment. Oh, and if you have XPR amps and you care about looks, the Marantz will matchy matchy matchy better than the XMC-1.  www.soundandvision.com/content/marantz-av8802-surround-processor-review |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 12:34:36 GMT -5
its also more than double what we all paid for the XMC-1 (before the price increase )
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on May 27, 2015 12:58:37 GMT -5
You always pay more buying retail.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 13:08:53 GMT -5
its also more than double what we all paid for the XMC-1 (before the price increase ) I picked up my AV8802 for far less than retail (think just over $3k) from a Marantz authorized dealer. With the price increase of the XMC-1 (even with 10% with e-Club) it is only a $1k delta between the two. No contest for what I wanted to achieve. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 13:16:39 GMT -5
Ok. If you go the "I got a discount" route. Then before increase and with 49% off card the xmc1 is 1200$ again the maranta is over double.
Or even with the increase it would be 1500$
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on May 27, 2015 13:20:14 GMT -5
Precisely!
|
|
|
|
Post by darien87 on May 27, 2015 15:25:43 GMT -5
it is only a $1k delta between the two. No contest for what I wanted to achieve. a thousand bucks?!?! Must be nice. |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on May 27, 2015 15:43:43 GMT -5
One thousand, two thousand, three thousand...
|
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on May 27, 2015 16:12:54 GMT -5
The Marantz 8802 is more attractive pre-amp. With their pedigree and Swiss army knife facet, they XMC-1 looks pale in contrast; however, Emotiva's concentration was sound quality. I would think Marantz 8802 would have a hard time, beating the XMC-1 in that respect.
It would be nice to hear people's option after a side by side comparison regarding sound quality. I compared the Oppo 105 two channels balanced with XMC-1 two channel --no EQ, all flat. It was really hard to tell the difference. The Oppo has a Reference SABRE DAC. Consider by many the best DAC in the world.
I don't know if Emotiva sold their soul to the Audiophile gods for their performances. Keep up the good work & please deliver on the XMC-1 promise of upgradeability.
|
|
|
|
Post by millst on May 27, 2015 20:58:21 GMT -5
A single exception does not invalidate my point. I was speaking about the majority of people. I place things like room correction and Atmos in the feature category. Yes, they impact how the unit sounds, but they are not the same as sound quality. Comparing Atmos against room correction is another apples and oranges comparison. Again, the original post was about the measurements without room correction so that is all irrelevant. I doubt many people would be able to distinguish the units in a double-blind test. They are both excellent. -tm not true...I am an exact example I had two choices 5.2.4 ATMOS which I already had setup with audyssey XT32 + subHT ( and some 2 channel...which is less than stellar with the denon) or 7.2 XMC-1 with dirac (great with 2 channel as well) to ME....the sound quality of the XMC-1 with dirac outweighed the advantage of ATMOS ...if i could have both (maybe the XMR-1?) I would go that route...but for now...sound quality (which was significant and is backed up by graphs and ETC graphs) is more important than 9 titles released on ATMOS...(and I was the biggest ATMOS promoter in these boards...so take that into account) |
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,435
|
Post by Lsc on May 27, 2015 22:01:02 GMT -5
The Marantz 8802 is more attractive pre-amp. With their pedigree and Swiss army knife facet, they XMC-1 looks pale in contrast; however, Emotiva's concentration was sound quality. I would think Marantz 8802 would have a hard time, beating the XMC-1 in that respect. It would be nice to hear people's option after a side by side comparison regarding sound quality. I compared the Oppo 105 two channels balanced with XMC-1 two channel --no EQ, all flat. It was really hard to tell the difference. The Oppo has a Reference SABRE DAC. Consider by many the best DAC in the world. I don't know if Emotiva sold their soul to the Audiophile gods for their performances. Keep up the good work & please deliver on the XMC-1 promise of upgradeability. While I really put little stock in the appearance department, I personally think the two knobs with the circle display of the Marantz doesn't look good at all. It's not much different than their cheap receivers. I do think the 8802 is a compelling option for those who put movies as their priority especially having Atmos. But obviously for me none of this matters since I have the XMC-1 and have zero plans to get the 8802. Couldn't care less how good the reviews are on any pre-pro  . |
|
Let's not forget Emotiva has advertised in every single issue of Sound & Vision for many years now. I guess those positive reviews they received also aren't really accurate because they must be biased based on Emotiva paying the bills eh? 
. 