|
|
Post by rbk123 on Feb 4, 2020 16:51:23 GMT -5
I would definitely not buy the XMC1 unless you have average speakers. Either the XMC2 or RMC1L. 🤪🤪🤪🤪 I’ve heard great 👍 things about “AVERAGE SPEAKERS “!! Anybody know where I can audition a pair?? My speakers can beat up your speakers.  |
|
|
|
Post by routlaw on Feb 4, 2020 17:02:17 GMT -5
@ Lsc, likewise I have a very revealing set of speakers, Genesis 6.1's but have never thought the XMC-1 made them sound bright. However I will add the following to the equation over time I found creating two different presets one strictly for two channel reference mode with speakers set accordingly in the setup menu produced much better sound for using Reference Mode. While running Reference mode using a multi channel preset produced diminished results. It shouldn't but I could discern the difference every time.
In any case thanks for your followup and clarification on previous post.
|
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Feb 4, 2020 18:50:07 GMT -5
🤪🤪🤪🤪 I’ve heard great 👍 things about “AVERAGE SPEAKERS “!! Anybody know where I can audition a pair?? My speakers can beat up your speakers.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2020 19:50:49 GMT -5
LOL, why on earth or how on earth did you come to this conclusion. Wow! First I only had a few moments between my meetings lol. Obviously my wording wasn’t the best but what I should have replied with my first instinct. That is, the person asking the question is the best one to decide. My horrible point was that if you are investing a large amount of money into your gear, get the one that’s supposed to sound better and can handle the latest Dolby and DTS surround modes. Please disregard my rushed post(s). 🤦♂️😂 5.1 or 7.1 (or .2), they all sound the same! With Emo speakers or the big bucks speakers. Ignore all the noise from Hype City.  |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Feb 5, 2020 0:42:15 GMT -5
...
Contrary to what some people seem to think, the DACs in the XMC-1 are actually very good, and not that far different from the ones in the XMC-2 and RMC-1.
I wouldn't bet that the DACs in the Teac are audibly better either.
The XMC-1 also has an excellent analog section.
The Teac NT-505 is using two AK4497s in "Dual Monaral Mode", Asahi Kasei's previous flagship DAC chip, which was only just superseded by the more recent AK4499 flagship DAC[1]. Casey [1] Asahi Kasei Audio D/A Converters |
|
rsi77
Minor Hero
Posts: 11
|
Post by rsi77 on Feb 5, 2020 3:51:49 GMT -5
Well that makes sense, and it seems like good advice. So far I'm definitely leaning toward the XMC-1.
|
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Feb 5, 2020 8:18:45 GMT -5
I am going to be the square peg in the round hole thing. Get the RMC-10, just kidding. Get the XMC-1 for all the reasons above, but also with the intent that Atmos and other things don't interest you. Also you can get the XMC-1 quite reasonably. I use the XMC-1 allot in my editing area and it does very well. So, with the many others here with XMC-1, you may get a bit of bias here, but in this case, it is all true, and mostly very good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 5, 2020 8:59:36 GMT -5
Whooooo boy, am ** I ** going to be popular here... But here goes:
Don't buy a processor. Instead, buy an AVR with preamplifier outputs. Use external power amps (but ONLY if your speakers require them) for the Front R/L and the Center. Everything else is just effects and will be sufficiently powered by the AVR's internal amps. Why do I make such a recommendation?
1. Nothing becomes obsolete more quickly than HT equipment. Nothing. By the time you get your processor home, it's already obsolete.
2. Processors are SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive than AVRs due to the economy of volume. You'll get FAR more for your $$ with an AVR.
3. When you go to sell your expensive, obsolete processor, it'll have depreciated FAR more than an AVR would have.
4. The sound quality from an upscale processor is no better than what you'd get from a premium AVR - so why spend more for it?
5. Processors, being specialty products, are more likely to have glitches than AVRs. Read thread after thread about the glitches of processors to verify this.
6. This is for HT service - Source sound quality is relatively poor compared to straight stereo recordings. Yeah, the dinosaur stomp should be apocalyptic, but it isn't Hi-Fi!
7. Other than bragging rights, there is no reasonable justification for the existence of HT processors. It's just an expensive affectation. Get over it.
Now having produced the rant above, I do recognize that it's your money and your choice. If you're hell-bent on having a HT processor, who am I to prevent you? And in fact, recognizing that there IS a market, many companies do offer HT processors. But before you buy one, at least consider the above.
Cordially - Boomzilla
|
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Feb 5, 2020 9:04:34 GMT -5
Point #4 is really the crux - those that agree will end up with an AVR; those that disagree will get a processor. And that's without taking into account those that also use their same HT hardware for 2 channel listening.
|
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Feb 5, 2020 9:58:30 GMT -5
Once you get into high end home theater, recommendations become a tough chore for sure.
A processor is somewhat of an enigma, with companies competing with each other constantly to come up with units that can be all things to everyone, which is impossible.
The FIRST thing which is true unfortunately, is making a decision regarding object based audio, to do or not, then go from there.
The other thing I want to drive home is that there is no intellectual reasoning WHY an AV processor can’t deliver all the high end audio quality of an audiophile preamplifier.
I came up with my first one in 2001 and have been doing it ever since.....(it’s all about spec.)
Bill
|
|
|
|
Post by rogersch on Feb 5, 2020 12:24:37 GMT -5
Go for the XMC1. The only which now has Dirac running....
|
|
|
|
Post by davidl81 on Feb 5, 2020 12:43:11 GMT -5
Whooooo boy, am ** I ** going to be popular here... But here goes: Don't buy a processor. Instead, buy an AVR with preamplifier outputs. Use external power amps (but ONLY if your speakers require them) for the Front R/L and the Center. Everything else is just effects and will be sufficiently powered by the AVR's internal amps. Why do I make such a recommendation? 1. Nothing becomes obsolete more quickly than HT equipment. Nothing. By the time you get your processor home, it's already obsolete. 2. Processors are SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive than AVRs due to the economy of volume. You'll get FAR more for your $$ with an AVR. 3. When you go to sell your expensive, obsolete processor, it'll have depreciated FAR more than an AVR would have. 4. The sound quality from an upscale processor is no better than what you'd get from a premium AVR - so why spend more for it? 5. Processors, being specialty products, are more likely to have glitches than AVRs. Read thread after thread about the glitches of processors to verify this. 6. This is for HT service - Source sound quality is relatively poor compared to straight stereo recordings. Yeah, the dinosaur stomp should be apocalyptic, but it isn't Hi-Fi! 7. Other than bragging rights, there is no reasonable justification for the existence of HT processors. It's just an expensive affectation. Get over it. Now having produced the rant above, I do recognize that it's your money and your choice. If you're hell-bent on having a HT processor, who am I to prevent you? And in fact, recognizing that there IS a market, many companies do offer HT processors. But before you buy one, at least consider the above. Cordially - Boomzilla It’s a small sample size Boom but I have gone from a Marantz SR7009 (at the time top of the line Marantz AVR) to the AV8802a then to the RMC-1. Each time there was a very large jump in SQ. I did not expect much difference from the SR7009 to the AV8802, but the difference was huge. Now would that be different if I had gone from the SR8012 to the AV8802? But the SR8012 is like a $3500 AVR. |
|
rsi77
Minor Hero
Posts: 11
|
Post by rsi77 on Feb 5, 2020 13:49:28 GMT -5
Point #4 is the crux for me--and I guess it depends on how you define "premium AVR". I currently own a Marantrz SR6006. When I connect my TEAC NT-505 directly to my amp I get a pretty decent sound. However on forums I read from other owners that this DAC actually can sound better when coupled with a decent preamp. So I tried connecting it through my Marantz, (pre-amp out to my amp)--the sound is noticeably impacted in the negative direction. Clarity and punch is lost. It was this that got me shopping for an AVR with a premium 2-channel signal path that could also do my HT work. As I mentioned in my first post the AVR's I was originally looking at were the Marantz 7702-MKII and up. But even the least of these are not substantially cheaper than a used XMC-1, and from all accounts the 2channel quality on the XMC-1 is much better. I also looked at AVR's because I don't really prefer to have to add amps for every channel of my 7.1 setup--I really only care about L-C-R. But the AVR's which seemed they'd treat my NT-505 with the respect it needed are costing close to 3k. This once again brings me back to XMC-1.
Now there may be AVR's of a quality between my SR6006 and the SR8012 (3k) which would sound indistinguishable from the XMC-1, but I don't know which one that would be, and I don't really want to experiment when a very reasonable solution seems to be staring me in the face. I don't know of anyone saying that a Marantz AVR sounds better than the XMC-1, and I've read many opinions which say the opposite. I've also seen data that support the claim that the XMC-1 is sonically superior (e.g. comparing AV7702 with XMC-1). I've heard people claim all DACs sound the same, all Preamps sound the same, all amps sound the same, etc. I will not argue with these people, but I will disagree. I do know that expectancy bias can strongly impact our perceptions, but I have enough "data" to be thoroughly convinced it's not what going on here all the time. And I am not even factoring in the improvement in HT experience which may result, or the improvement which could be realized by Dirac. I'm only considering the 2-ch signal path improvement which would allow me to get the best out of my DAC without having to switch cables every time I want to switch between 2ch and HT listening.
And regarding some other point: - #3--less of an issue if I'm already buying a used processor
- #5--I worry a little about his one after reading through these forums, but I can stand a little bit of glitching since I'm not changing between sources very often
- #6--My perception of the XMC-1 is that it does a pretty good job of preserving the integrity of the 2-ch signal path in the context of a HT system. At least it will be good enough for my level of demand.
- #7--actually I just want to enjoy my music
But I appreciate your thoughts in any case. The points you raise are definitely worth considering.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,275
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 5, 2020 14:07:13 GMT -5
I like the way you think.  And, yes, we went out of the way to make sure that the XMC-1 sounds exceptionally good (and that includes things like offering a true analog bypass if you don't want any processing).
I would add just one more thing about expectation bias... This is something that seems quite obvious to me - but many people seem not to consider...
And that is simply that expectation bias works both ways... You may be biased to hear a difference; but you may also be biased to not hear a difference.
Yes, absolutely, people who expect to hear a difference may end up imagining they hear something that isn't there - and this seems to be especially common among audiophiles. But the reverse is also true. People who expect to not hear a difference can end up ignoring small differences that are there - or simply refusing to believe their own ears. Or they may say "they don't hear a difference" when what they really means is "they don't hear a difference that they consider important" - which is not exactly the same thing.
Point #4 is the crux for me--and I guess it depends on how you define "premium AVR". I currently own a Marantrz SR6006. When I connect my TEAC NT-505 directly to my amp I get a pretty decent sound. However on forums I read from other owners that this DAC actually can sound better when coupled with a decent preamp. So I tried connecting it through my Marantz, (pre-amp out to my amp)--the sound is noticeably impacted in the negative direction. Clarity and punch is lost. It was this that got me shopping for an AVR with a premium 2-channel signal path that could also do my HT work. As I mentioned in my first post the AVR's I was originally looking at were the Marantz 7702-MKII and up. But even the least of these are not substantially cheaper than a used XMC-1, and from all accounts the 2channel quality on the XMC-1 is much better. I also looked at AVR's because I don't really prefer to have to add amps for every channel of my 7.1 setup--I really only care about L-C-R. But the AVR's which seemed they'd treat my NT-505 with the respect it needed are costing close to 3k. This once again brings me back to XMC-1.
Now there may be AVR's of a quality between my SR6006 and the SR8012 (3k) which would sound indistinguishable from the XMC-1, but I don't know which one that would be, and I don't really want to experiment when a very reasonable solution seems to be staring me in the face. I don't know of anyone saying that a Marantz AVR sounds better than the XMC-1, and I've read many opinions which say the opposite. I've also seen data that support the claim that the XMC-1 is sonically superior (e.g. comparing AV7702 with XMC-1). I've heard people claim all DACs sound the same, all Preamps sound the same, all amps sound the same, etc. I will not argue with these people, but I will disagree. I do know that expectancy bias can strongly impact our perceptions, but I have enough "data" to be thoroughly convinced it's not what going on here all the time. And I am not even factoring in the improvement in HT experience which may result, or the improvement which could be realized by Dirac. I'm only considering the 2-ch signal path improvement which would allow me to get the best out of my DAC without having to switch cables every time I want to switch between 2ch and HT listening. And regarding some other point: - #3--less of an issue if I'm already buying a used processor
- #5--I worry a little about his one after reading through these forums, but I can stand a little bit of glitching since I'm not changing between sources very often
- #6--My perception of the XMC-1 is that it does a pretty good job of preserving the integrity of the 2-ch signal path in the context of a HT system. At least it will be good enough for my level of demand.
- #7--actually I just want to enjoy my music
But I appreciate your thoughts in any case. The points you raise are definitely worth considering.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidl81 on Feb 5, 2020 14:40:55 GMT -5
Point #4 is the crux for me--and I guess it depends on how you define "premium AVR". I currently own a Marantrz SR6006. When I connect my TEAC NT-505 directly to my amp I get a pretty decent sound. However on forums I read from other owners that this DAC actually can sound better when coupled with a decent preamp. So I tried connecting it through my Marantz, (pre-amp out to my amp)--the sound is noticeably impacted in the negative direction. Clarity and punch is lost. It was this that got me shopping for an AVR with a premium 2-channel signal path that could also do my HT work. As I mentioned in my first post the AVR's I was originally looking at were the Marantz 7702-MKII and up. But even the least of these are not substantially cheaper than a used XMC-1, and from all accounts the 2channel quality on the XMC-1 is much better. I also looked at AVR's because I don't really prefer to have to add amps for every channel of my 7.1 setup--I really only care about L-C-R. But the AVR's which seemed they'd treat my NT-505 with the respect it needed are costing close to 3k. This once again brings me back to XMC-1.
Now there may be AVR's of a quality between my SR6006 and the SR8012 (3k) which would sound indistinguishable from the XMC-1, but I don't know which one that would be, and I don't really want to experiment when a very reasonable solution seems to be staring me in the face. I don't know of anyone saying that a Marantz AVR sounds better than the XMC-1, and I've read many opinions which say the opposite. I've also seen data that support the claim that the XMC-1 is sonically superior (e.g. comparing AV7702 with XMC-1). I've heard people claim all DACs sound the same, all Preamps sound the same, all amps sound the same, etc. I will not argue with these people, but I will disagree. I do know that expectancy bias can strongly impact our perceptions, but I have enough "data" to be thoroughly convinced it's not what going on here all the time. And I am not even factoring in the improvement in HT experience which may result, or the improvement which could be realized by Dirac. I'm only considering the 2-ch signal path improvement which would allow me to get the best out of my DAC without having to switch cables every time I want to switch between 2ch and HT listening.
And regarding some other point: - #3--less of an issue if I'm already buying a used processor
- #5--I worry a little about his one after reading through these forums, but I can stand a little bit of glitching since I'm not changing between sources very often
- #6--My perception of the XMC-1 is that it does a pretty good job of preserving the integrity of the 2-ch signal path in the context of a HT system. At least it will be good enough for my level of demand.
- #7--actually I just want to enjoy my music
But I appreciate your thoughts in any case. The points you raise are definitely worth considering.
I will say that if you can buy a trade in XMC-1 for $1k direct from Emotiva that would be the way to go for the time being. It will do everything you want it to do right now and I am certain it will sound significantly better than your SR6006. And the great thing is that let’s say in two years you want to go Atmos. Well then you can always sell the XMC for maybe $800ish (guessing on price) and then get an Atmos processor. By that time you will know if you like Emotiva and the XMC-2 etc should have the bugs worked out. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 5, 2020 14:55:09 GMT -5
SO... Let's do some "sonic ranking" among AVR brands.
BOTTOM OF THE BARREL:
HT in a box by ANYONE
MIDRANGE:
ANY Japanese brand (including Marantz)
Cambridge
Lexicon
McIntosh
NAD
Outlaw
Sherwood
ASPIRING TO HIGH END (but still not sonically comparable to high end stereo gear):
Anthem
Arcam
Rotel
|
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Feb 5, 2020 17:26:25 GMT -5
So then I believe that invalidates the 2nd half of your 4th point:
4. The sound quality from an upscale processor is no better than what you'd get from a premium AVR - so why spend more for it?
Based on your list above, to get equivalent sound in an AVR to the XMC, you're actually going to have to pay more, not less.
|
|
|
|
Post by rogersch on Feb 8, 2020 4:38:18 GMT -5
1. Nothing becomes obsolete more quickly than HT equipment. Nothing. By the time you get your processor home, it's already obsolete. And this is exacly which you should buy a refurbished XMC-1. As the XMC-1 is commercially already obsolete, you can buy it rather cheap..... |
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Feb 8, 2020 10:13:31 GMT -5
1. Nothing becomes obsolete more quickly than HT equipment. Nothing. By the time you get your processor home, it's already obsolete. And this is exacly which you should buy a refurbished XMC-1. As the XMC-1 is commercially already obsolete, you can buy it rather cheap..... “Commercially obsolete”. .... I like how you put that, as it speaks perfectly to personal preference in a processor vs. being obsolete in the competitive commercial sense. An audio/video processor is NEVER obsolete until it fails to meet the parameters of a specific system. Bill |
|
|
|
Post by daveczski65 on Feb 8, 2020 10:22:23 GMT -5
wonder if they will let me use my 40% card on refurb XMC-1?
|
|
