|
|
Post by htnut1975 on Feb 27, 2020 7:06:11 GMT -5
I was thinking of buying the NAD T578(?) the AVR with Dirac.. Anywho not a lot of in-depth reviews about it but it was tested on Audio Science Review The thread was About 7 or 12 pages long and no one actually mentioned how it sounded... No one! Only how it measured.. I don't buy Hifi/AV gear to measure I buy it to listen too Measurements are important, but how it sounds is far more important, I think ASR was probably set up for the right intentions but its ideology has just ruined it.. It's as much a religion as audiophilism can be. But it's science and it's proven they say, but most people shouting that are taking one person measurements and taking that as law That's not science, that's dangerous I think they generally follow that principle (that measurements surpass subjective impressions because impressions can be misleading/aren't reliable). And that's fine. I think there's definitely a place for that in this realm where larger amounts of money is being spent. I generally enjoy ASR because I learn a little bit here and there and there are some genuinely interesting people with engineering backgrounds who post there (last year, I caught myself actually watching 'electrical circuits 101'-type YouTube videos as a result from lurking around ASR--actually interesting stuff!!). That said, I do think there are a few who are overly zealous in their claims. Hyperbolic adjectives are thrown around for issues that are minuscule and there are speculations about why XYZ measurement occurred (e.g., the intent of the creator was malevolent or the creator(s) of an item were "incompetent"). In some ways that's understandable because if a group of people focus on a minuscule detail for a certain amount of time, they may lose perspective (and then you have the whole 'group-think' or 'mob' phenomenon going on to accompany that). It is too bad that that's the case because I think the whole review could have brought about some really interesting discussion surrounding design choice and what can/can't be done and what can/can't be improved, etc. Oh well. |
|
|
|
Post by brutiarti on Feb 27, 2020 8:49:11 GMT -5
These guys forget that this is a hobby and not a hedge fund retirement plan.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,342
|
Post by DYohn on Feb 27, 2020 9:19:04 GMT -5
I take anything posted on ASR as both biased and inaccurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Feb 27, 2020 9:36:38 GMT -5
I think they generally follow that principle (that measurements surpass subjective impressions because impressions can be misleading/aren't reliable). And that's fine. I think there's definitely a place for that in this realm where larger amounts of money is being spent. I generally enjoy ASR because I learn a little bit here and there and there are some genuinely interesting people with engineering backgrounds who post there (last year, I caught myself actually watching 'electrical circuits 101'-type YouTube videos as a result from lurking around ASR--actually interesting stuff!!). That said, I do think there are a few who are overly zealous in their claims. Hyperbolic adjectives are thrown around for issues that are minuscule and there are speculations about why XYZ measurement occurred (e.g., the intent of the creator was malevolent or the creator(s) of an item were "incompetent"). In some ways that's understandable because if a group of people focus on a minuscule detail for a certain amount of time, they may lose perspective (and then you have the whole 'group-think' or 'mob' phenomenon going on to accompany that). It is too bad that that's the case because I think the whole review could have brought about some really interesting discussion surrounding design choice and what can/can't be done and what can/can't be improved, etc. Oh well. This is spot on. There IS a lot of snake oil out there, and Emo itself was founded to provide high-end but without the insane markup angle that if it costs more it must be better. That's good things to be battling, but measurements don't tell the entire story, they're just another data point to consider. 10 years from now people will be laughing at how lame Amir's current test setup and measurements are. 20 years from now people will be laughing at those who are laughing. It's because we're still learning what measurements actually tell what when it comes to hearing. |
|
|
|
Post by millst on Feb 27, 2020 10:48:26 GMT -5
Arguing against science and measurements is absurd. If you've all got the time and money to buy multiple preprocessors, then double-blind test them for sonic quality...GREAT. I'll take measurements, with a grain of salt (of course), to steer my decisions. While not perfect, they are proven to correlate to what the majority of us hear. The alternative is to read some esoteric magazine where a self-professed goldenear discusses lifting the veil. No thanks, we already had that for decades (the worst for snake oil).
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Laufman on Feb 27, 2020 10:52:46 GMT -5
Hi all, OK, we've been digging into this in order to see what was going on with the test anomalies shown on the ASR testing. Something was definitely going on and it had nothing to do with the circuit design or baseline performance of the RMC-1 and its offspring. This data shown below is via HDMI at 24/192k, two channels. The signal levels match the ones used by ASR. That is, 0dB - 4 volts RMS, nominal. Here is how we actually perform:  So, what happened?? Ray dug into the test results and was finally able to duplicate the issue. It has nothing to do with the circuit design and everything to do with an incorrectly set register in the DSP. Once we cleared the error, this is the result. Please note that this had no effect on multichannel playback. We've added an additional two channel test procedure in the AP test during production to ensure that this will not sneak in again. Hopefully in the future, the collective 'we" can take a moment to fully understand what is happening before rushing to conclusions. In know it's not nearly as exciting as "catching" someone, but it's not very constructive. We respect and appreciate the service performed by ASR, but disagree with their approach. We believe that a more constructive path would be to contact the manufacturer when a gross error is discovered in order to allow a proper analysis and response. Sending an unsolicited email to us at 9:00 pm on Friday night and then saying you "gave us a chance to respond" is not cool. We have never had any prior contact or communication with ASR and Lonnie receives hundreds of emails a day. By the time he saw this, it was live. However, having said all of this, we appreciate the feedback and apologize for the error. We will have a firmware update (V1.9) that will correct this issue ASAP. We expect to realease beta code today. Thanks, Big Dan |
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Feb 27, 2020 11:06:33 GMT -5
Hi all, OK, we've been digging into this in order to see what was going on with the test anomalies shown on the ASR testing. Something was definitely going on and it had nothing to do with the circuit design or baseline performance of the RMC-1 and its offspring. This data shown below is via HDMI at 24/192k, two channels. The signal levels match the ones used by ASR. That is, 0dB - 4 volts RMS, nominal. Here is how how we actually perform: View AttachmentSo, what happened?? Ray dug into the test results and was finally able to duplicate the issue. It has nothing to do with the circuit design and everything to do with an incorrectly set register in the DSP. Once we cleared the error, this is the result. Please note that this had no effect on multichannel playback. We've added an additional two channel test procedure in the AP test during production to ensure that this will not sneak in again. Hopefully in the future, the collective 'we" can take a moment to fully understand what is happening before rushing to conclusions. In know it's not nearly as exciting as "catching" someone, but it's not very constructive. We respect and appreciate the service performed by ASR, but disagree with their approach. We believe that a more constructive path would be to contact the manufacturer when a gross error is discovered in order to allow a proper analysis and response. Sending an unsolicited email to us at 9:00 pm on Friday night and then saying you "gave us a chance to respond" is not cool. We have never had any prior contact or communication with ASR and Lonnie receives hundreds of emails a day. By the time he saw this, it was live. However, having said all of this, we appreciate the feedback and apologize for the error. We will have a firmware update (V1.9) that will correct this issue ASAP. We expect to realease beta code today. Thanks, Big dan This is the same as a customer getting with Emo FIRST....and seeing what can be done before getting on the forum. Nice to see problem being solved but sure, could have been handled better. Bill |
|
|
|
Post by thxultra on Feb 27, 2020 11:10:17 GMT -5
Hi all, OK, we've been digging into this in order to see what was going on with the test anomalies shown on the ASR testing. Something was definitely going on and it had nothing to do with the circuit design or baseline performance of the RMC-1 and its offspring. This data shown below is via HDMI at 24/192k, two channels. The signal levels match the ones used by ASR. That is, 0dB - 4 volts RMS, nominal. Here is how how we actually perform: View AttachmentSo, what happened?? Ray dug into the test results and was finally able to duplicate the issue. It has nothing to do with the circuit design and everything to do with an incorrectly set register in the DSP. Once we cleared the error, this is the result. Please note that this had no effect on multichannel playback. We've added an additional two channel test procedure in the AP test during production to ensure that this will not sneak in again. Hopefully in the future, the collective 'we" can take a moment to fully understand what is happening before rushing to conclusions. In know it's not nearly as exciting as "catching" someone, but it's not very constructive. We respect and appreciate the service performed by ASR, but disagree with their approach. We believe that a more constructive path would be to contact the manufacturer when a gross error is discovered in order to allow a proper analysis and response. Sending an unsolicited email to us at 9:00 pm on Friday night and then saying you "gave us a chance to respond" is not cool. We have never had any prior contact or communication with ASR and Lonnie receives hundreds of emails a day. By the time he saw this, it was live. However, having said all of this, we appreciate the feedback and apologize for the error. We will have a firmware update (V1.9) that will correct this issue ASAP. We expect to realease beta code today. Thanks, Big dan Awesome thanks for the update. Really fast fix also nice job guys. Have to say pretty impressive how fast you guys found and resolved this. What does the test look like after the fix? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Laufman on Feb 27, 2020 11:21:33 GMT -5
[/quote]Awesome thanks for the update. Really fast fix also nice job guys. Have to say pretty impressive how fast you guys found and resolved this. What does the test look like after the fix? [/quote]  |
|
richb
Sensei
Oppo Beta Group - Audioholics Reviewer
Posts: 858
|
Post by richb on Feb 27, 2020 11:29:55 GMT -5
This is the filter we are currently using on the AK4490 DACs... it is the default filter for the AK4490... Note that this filter is software selectable...
This means that we may eventually switch to a different one or offer the user multiple filter options... (for everyone not familiar with digital filters)... Digital filters work quite differently than the analog filters many of us are familiar with. The odd looking ripple effect in the response is normal and is found in virtually all digital filters. (Note that, between the nulls, the peaks in the ripple remain at a very low level.)
Again you are correct, most DACs offer a variety of filter options. But I have never seen one look like the one used in the RMC-1, could you please explain to me what kind of filter this is and why it was chosen? It has become clear to me that I don't fully understand the design choices made, so I'm trying to learn. The Oppo UDP-205 defaults to a minimum phase fast filters but it is not my preference. The Oppo has an app which facilitates switching the filters on the fly and it has been enlightening. There is a noticeable difference made by these filter choices. Obviously, there are greater priorities but it seems that Linear Phase Fast is the best at preserving phase and limiting artifacts beyond nyquist. Slow filters are currently in vogue but Linear Phase Fast would be a good option to consider. - Rich |
|
|
|
Post by thxultra on Feb 27, 2020 11:31:09 GMT -5
Awesome thanks for the update. Really fast fix also nice job guys. Have to say pretty impressive how fast you guys found and resolved this. What does the test look like after the fix? [/quote] Attachment Deleted[/quote] Is this in direct mode or reference stereo? I know the AVS guy was getting different results which was surprising because I only thought it would be different for Analogue sources. Also any reason why s/n is lower then the XMC-1 tested at? I'm no engineer so I'm just curious. |
|
|
|
Post by SOWK on Feb 27, 2020 11:48:50 GMT -5
Now if I could get a sub channel PEQ fix that quick....  Guess I need to become a major reviewer and then post my findings.... Too soon? haha. |
|
|
|
Post by htnut1975 on Feb 27, 2020 11:59:46 GMT -5
Arguing against science and measurements is absurd. If you've all got the time and money to buy multiple preprocessors, then double-blind test them for sonic quality...GREAT. I'll take measurements, with a grain of salt (of course), to steer my decisions. While not perfect, they are proven to correlate to what the majority of us hear. The alternative is to read some esoteric magazine where a self-professed goldenear discusses lifting the veil. No thanks, we already had that for decades (the worst for snake oil). I certainly wouldn't argue against the importance of measurements, but I might take issue with what many cavalierly throw around as 'science'. Making evaluative judgments about what measurements mean is, as we know, a step away from those measurements (value judgments are not measurements, after all). From there, making evaluative judgments about the evaluative judgments made about those original measurements is yet another step away from the original measurements (and then making hyperbolic assertions based on both speculative inference and those second-order value judgments is yet another step removed from the original measurement). For example, I measure that the implementation of such and such AVR's DAC has a noise floor of XYZ when such and such tone is emitted. I make the judgment that that is "in general, a good measurement." I know this because of the general background knowledge I've accumulated over time as an enthusiast (or, perhaps I'm an electrical engineer who concentrates in the area of acoustics, or whatever). I then measure a different AVR's DAC that has a higher noise floor than the original AVR. I make the judgment that "that's not quite as good of a measurement as the original one." But it turns out that the noise floor between the two AVRs cannot be perceived by human hearing. So, I make the value judgment that "with respect to human hearing and the noise floor comparison between the two AVR's, one is no better than the other." We can consider this with a multitude of different measurements and what they mean. Then, we can assess/make judgments about what matters in the end. It may turn out that the AVR with the higher noise floor “sounds better” because of a multitude of other factors. One important question I would want answered is “what is proven to correlate to what the majority of us hear” in the kind of environment typically employed by a multichannel processor that simultaneously shows video? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Laufman on Feb 27, 2020 12:05:43 GMT -5
This is the filter we are currently using on the AK4490 DACs... it is the default filter for the AK4490... Note that this filter is software selectable...
This means that we may eventually switch to a different one or offer the user multiple filter options...
(for everyone not familiar with digital filters)... Digital filters work quite differently than the analog filters many of us are familiar with. The odd looking ripple effect in the response is normal and is found in virtually all digital filters. (Note that, between the nulls, the peaks in the ripple remain at a very low level.)
The Oppo UDP-205 defaults to a minimum phase fast filters but it is not my preference. The Oppo has an app which facilitates switching the filters on the fly and it has been enlightening. There is a noticeable difference made by these filter choices. Obviously, there are greater priorities but it seems that Linear Phase Fast is the best at preserving phase and limiting artifacts beyond nyquist. Slow filters are currently in vogue but Linear Phase Fast would be a good option to consider. - Rich Adding to what Keith has stated... Output filters are like fashion... what's cool today is out of style tomorrow. We are currently using the "slow" liner phase filter setting because of its sound quality. This filter performs well from a phase standpoint, and we think this has audible benefits. But, it doesn't look as pretty on a test graph. However, one man's poison is another man's pleasure. We plan on offering selectable output filters as an option on a future firmware update. Remember though, this stuff is down in the weeds and very subtle audibly. But hey, once we add this feature, you can play to your hearts content! |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Laufman on Feb 27, 2020 12:07:31 GMT -5
Now if I could get a sub channel PEQ fix that quick.... Guess I need to become a major reviewer and then post my findings.... Too soon? haha. The PEQ issue is on the top of the list! Apologies for the delay in getting this rectified... it's been all hands on deck for Dirac completion. |
|
|
|
Post by SOWK on Feb 27, 2020 12:12:23 GMT -5
Now if I could get a sub channel PEQ fix that quick.... Guess I need to become a major reviewer and then post my findings.... Too soon? haha. The PEQ issue is on the top of the list! Apologies for the delay in getting this rectified... it's been all hands on deck for Dirac completion.
Once these things are done can you work on maybe giving a planned roll out of channel expansion modules?
But yes... Stable and working RMC-1 with DIRAC first and foremost.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by urwi on Feb 27, 2020 12:27:49 GMT -5
Guess you were just proven wrong about that. I take anything posted on ASR as both biased and inaccurate. |
|
|
|
Post by kernelpanic on Feb 27, 2020 12:56:46 GMT -5
Very nice to see the quick response and investigation from Emotiva! Would this firmware fix cover all three processors? Do you think this issues affects the XMC-2 as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by SOWK on Feb 27, 2020 12:58:35 GMT -5
Would this firmware fix cover all three processors? Do you think this issues affects the XMC-2 as well? Actually they are going out of their way to fix all but the XMC-2....
Joking...
Yes, they use the same firmware so the fix will be on all of them.
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,181
|
Post by geebo on Feb 27, 2020 13:00:44 GMT -5
I hope it stills sounds as good when the spec gets fixed...  |
|
