RMC-1/RMC-1L/XMC-2 Owners Thread (Post Firmware v1.10)

[wizardofoz]

Why is the XMC2 @84 so bad compared to the XMC1 @98?

[hsamwel]

Oct 12, 2021 16:28:52 GMT -5 KeithL said:

Obviously, if the MQA-encoded signal was identical to the original, then it would also sound exactly the same.

The reason it sounds different is that MQA alters the signal.

If you play back MQA-encoded content on a system that doesn't support MQA then you lose quality... and this is not in dispute.

(You've lost the part of the bandwidth that was used to encode the MQA stuff that you aren't using.)

The first unfold does the biggest part of the decoding process (and clients like the Tidal client can do that part in software).

The second unfold recovers a bit more of the data that was stored in the MQA encoding...

And the "third unfold" is really just the special upsampling filter that MQA uses (rather than the "regular upsampling filter" most DACs would be using otherwise)...

Personally I tend to find a distinction which is rarely discussed to be pretty darned important...

If something was ACTUALLY ORIGINALLY RECORDED USING MQA ENCODING...

Then there is at least the potential that it will capture the details of the original performance better than if some other encoding method, like PCM or DSD, was used.

However there are very few things that are currently being actually recorded in MQA...

And, obviously, nothing that recorded or mastered before MQA even existed is on that list...

The second level is material which has been encoded into MQA "after the fact".

This list includes EVERYTHING that was released in MQA versions but was recorded or mastered "pre-MQA".

For this material MQA is simply a form of post-processing that is intended to alter the way the recording sounds in a pleasant fashion.

In principle at least some material was "carefully hand processed using MQA re-encoding to reverse engineer flaws or limitations in the original recording".

However, based on current information, very little material actually receives this "white glove hand processing".

The final, and lowest, level is material that was simply passed through an automated MQA-encoding process...

This processing is intended to attempt to (at least partially) "reverse engineer flaws in the original conversion to digital format and correct them"...

However, since many recordings include multiple tracks, which may have even been converted using different equipment, before then being mixed together...

This is, at best, a "one size fits all" solution... intended to correct for some flaws that are claimed to be common in MOST analog-to-digital conversion hardware...

(A good analogy would be the way we employ sharpening in Photoshop "because it makes a lot of things look better".)

However, as a result of this limitation, it would fairly be described as "an attempt to alter the way the material sounds in a pleasing way that hopefully makes it closer to the original".

(And claims that it accurately reproduces the original are somewhat over enthusiastic.)

Either way, at this point, the "MQA corrected content" could simply be delivered as a 24/96k PCM file.

(They could simply "use the MQA processing to improve the content" then deliver it to you in some other more standard format.)

(In a sense this is what happens when Tidal "does the first unfold in software" - and gives you a 24/96k PCM output that you can play on an ordinary non-MQA DAC.)

However, as part of the entire process, MQA also includes a bandwidth reduction that delivers a benefit equivalent to compression.

This benefit is not especially useful for content stored on disc - but can be significant for content that is streamed.

In the end, with MQA you are getting "content that takes up less bandwidth than the original but also sounds different than the original"...

All that remains is for you to decide whether you consider that difference in sound to be a benefit or a flaw...

An interesting thought is that, if the change in sound was the intended benefit, the "MQA correction encoder" could simply be built into a DAC or processor.

This would enable the end user to get the benefit of the change in sound without having to acquire MQA enabled content...

Hmmmmm.....

In any case, for many manufacturers of audio gear, the goal is to "fill their trophy wall with logos"...

(Another term for this is "trying to be all things to all people".)

And, to be quite blunt, this is enough reason for many to add yet another audio format to the list of those they support...

I don't know what percentage of people who purchase "MQA enabled" equipment actually listen to MQA-encoded content on it...

(I suspect that there are also a few who can't hear the difference - but derive great satisfaction from seeing the little LED light up.)

(But, then, I've also spoken to many people who do hear the difference, and DO NOT consider it to be an improvement.)

But I do know that overall demand for MQA among our customers is relatively low...

(And this is even more true when asked: "Would you pay extra for it?")

(And do remember that you can run the Tidal client on your computer - and enjoy the benefits of that first important unfold - on ANY OF OUR GEAR.)

Which is why we have chosen not to divert development resources, and licensing costs, to adding it to our products...

 

Oct 10, 2021 15:01:51 GMT -5 hsamwel said:

If I remember correctly the first unfold is pretty much a full 88.2/96khz 24bit without much if any change
at all from a lossless version. It’s the second and third that does some changes.
If it is worse than resampled (upsampled) hirez from Qubuz I can’t judge. But there should be a difference
in the frequency. Just by what MQA is said to contain.
TIDAL uses this for most of its content.
Too me that only listens to the first unfold it sounds really good.

I mostly asked if it is at all possible to implement. Maybe needs some extra hardware for the full rendering?
There aren’t that many devices that do the full rendering, mostly really high end hifi gear.
Strange that most high end brands have added MQA if its so bad?

Wow, a lengthy answer about how MQA works.. Thanks!

I guessed already that this would not be implemented.
But I was really asking if it is possible to implement full MQA after the fact.
Or does it need other hardware? I know that the DAC has its own MQA filter but
is that the only thing?

Btw most MQA tracks does not sound different to the standard 44.1/16 originals IMO.
Atleast when the first unfold has been done on it.
Some you clearly hear they have done something. Just for fun I compared Qobuz
176/24 to a MQA 96/24 first unfold. It was Michael Jackson - Thriller the album.
This was pretty shocking difference. For the first time MJ actually had some bass
in the songs.. In this example clearly I would prefer MQA.. Other tunes could be
the other way around. And some sound pretty much the same.

It’s actually feels the same as a remastered CD.. Sometimes you like it and sometimes
you don’t. Sometimes there’s pretty much only a volume difference.. 

But I guess you NEED the first unfold really.. I read somewhere that MQA tracks that
does not get the first unfold only does playback of about 13bits of the original because
of the way the format works.

[hsamwel]

Oct 15, 2021 2:33:51 GMT -5 wizardofoz said:

Why is the XMC2 @84 so bad compared to the XMC1 @98?

Well.. The SINAD seems to take into account the distortion peaks..
While RMC-1 had lower peaks, it had them in the same place thus got higher SINAD.
If these peaks at 2, 3 and 5 khz have any impact on sound quality I don’t know.

But they are outside of the audible level anyway. I think it was below -90db for XMC-2.
RMC-1 measured below -100db for the same peaks.

But to say ASR measured wrong is false. Any gear should be measured at max input level.
Why Emotiva measures with -20db is strange.

Attachments:

[KeithL]

Just to be fair here... the audible differences MQA produces involve mostly transients and high frequency extension.

There's really no reason to expect MQA processing to have a significant effect on bass response.

It's possible that improving the accuracy of upper harmonics might make the bass seem "clearer" or "cleaner" - but it shouldn't change the level of bass frequencies.

(So that difference is more likely due to some other aspect of the "reprocessing and remastering" of that album... like a bit of boost in the bass eq.)

As you say, with MQA content, you really do want the "first unfold".

In simplest terms, what MQA encoding does is to "steal the bottom few bits of the signal and use that space to store its extra information".

In practical terms music really has a dynamic range of, at most, around 90 dB.

Therefore, with a 24 bit file, losing the bottom three bits really won't be audible.

However, with a CD, or any other 16 bit file, it's really starting to cut into what might be audible.

Therefore you really do want to "get back some of the benefit for which you've sacrificed those bits".

This is another one of those instances where the technical explanations offered for MQA are somewhat vague...

Most MQA FILE downloads are offered as 24 bit files... so simply losing three bits of resolution is probably not going to be audible...

However a CD, which must be compatible with ordinary CD players, is limited to 16 bits...

This makes the situation rather different with "MQA CDs" than with "MQA files"...

(So, while I haven't actually tried it, I would expect playing back an "MQA CD" without that first unfold to cause a bigger loss of quality than doing the same with a 24 bit MQA file.)

Also, as you say, the amount of difference between MQA and non-MQA content varies widely... which suggests that a lot of it is due to the remastering rather than the MQA processing.

Another confusing factor is that, reportedly, some sources now supply everything in MQA, or don't clearly tell you which is which, which prevents you from actually comparing "the MQA and non-MQA versions".

(And, when a provider uses the MQA CODEC internally, as part of that processing at least some "MQA adjustment" will also be applied... there is no "bit-perfect option" with the MQA CODEC.)

What annoys many folks in the industry is that MQA is being marketed as a "package"...

So, for example, in theory a recording could be "processed, improved, and remastered" with MQA...

Then unfolded, converted to PCM, and offered as a 24/96k PCM download...

However this option is NEVER offered to we consumers...

(Arguably you would lose the benefits of MQA compression... but you'd have a file that could be played on any DAC.)

(MQA proponents would argue that you aren't getting the benefits of the second and third unfolds... which would be true... but you would be getting the benefits of "the remastering and correcting".)

(This is basically what you end up with when you do "the first unfold" in software, like Tidal's PC and Mac clients do, and then send it to a non-MQA DAC.)

Oct 15, 2021 4:30:01 GMT -5 hsamwel said:

Oct 12, 2021 16:28:52 GMT -5 KeithL said:

Obviously, if the MQA-encoded signal was identical to the original, then it would also sound exactly the same.

The reason it sounds different is that MQA alters the signal.

If you play back MQA-encoded content on a system that doesn't support MQA then you lose quality... and this is not in dispute.

(You've lost the part of the bandwidth that was used to encode the MQA stuff that you aren't using.)

The first unfold does the biggest part of the decoding process (and clients like the Tidal client can do that part in software).

The second unfold recovers a bit more of the data that was stored in the MQA encoding...

And the "third unfold" is really just the special upsampling filter that MQA uses (rather than the "regular upsampling filter" most DACs would be using otherwise)...

Personally I tend to find a distinction which is rarely discussed to be pretty darned important...

If something was ACTUALLY ORIGINALLY RECORDED USING MQA ENCODING...

Then there is at least the potential that it will capture the details of the original performance better than if some other encoding method, like PCM or DSD, was used.

However there are very few things that are currently being actually recorded in MQA...

And, obviously, nothing that recorded or mastered before MQA even existed is on that list...

The second level is material which has been encoded into MQA "after the fact".

This list includes EVERYTHING that was released in MQA versions but was recorded or mastered "pre-MQA".

For this material MQA is simply a form of post-processing that is intended to alter the way the recording sounds in a pleasant fashion.

In principle at least some material was "carefully hand processed using MQA re-encoding to reverse engineer flaws or limitations in the original recording".

However, based on current information, very little material actually receives this "white glove hand processing".

The final, and lowest, level is material that was simply passed through an automated MQA-encoding process...

This processing is intended to attempt to (at least partially) "reverse engineer flaws in the original conversion to digital format and correct them"...

However, since many recordings include multiple tracks, which may have even been converted using different equipment, before then being mixed together...

This is, at best, a "one size fits all" solution... intended to correct for some flaws that are claimed to be common in MOST analog-to-digital conversion hardware...

(A good analogy would be the way we employ sharpening in Photoshop "because it makes a lot of things look better".)

However, as a result of this limitation, it would fairly be described as "an attempt to alter the way the material sounds in a pleasing way that hopefully makes it closer to the original".

(And claims that it accurately reproduces the original are somewhat over enthusiastic.)

Either way, at this point, the "MQA corrected content" could simply be delivered as a 24/96k PCM file.

(They could simply "use the MQA processing to improve the content" then deliver it to you in some other more standard format.)

(In a sense this is what happens when Tidal "does the first unfold in software" - and gives you a 24/96k PCM output that you can play on an ordinary non-MQA DAC.)

However, as part of the entire process, MQA also includes a bandwidth reduction that delivers a benefit equivalent to compression.

This benefit is not especially useful for content stored on disc - but can be significant for content that is streamed.

In the end, with MQA you are getting "content that takes up less bandwidth than the original but also sounds different than the original"...

All that remains is for you to decide whether you consider that difference in sound to be a benefit or a flaw...

An interesting thought is that, if the change in sound was the intended benefit, the "MQA correction encoder" could simply be built into a DAC or processor.

This would enable the end user to get the benefit of the change in sound without having to acquire MQA enabled content...

Hmmmmm.....

In any case, for many manufacturers of audio gear, the goal is to "fill their trophy wall with logos"...

(Another term for this is "trying to be all things to all people".)

And, to be quite blunt, this is enough reason for many to add yet another audio format to the list of those they support...

I don't know what percentage of people who purchase "MQA enabled" equipment actually listen to MQA-encoded content on it...

(I suspect that there are also a few who can't hear the difference - but derive great satisfaction from seeing the little LED light up.)

(But, then, I've also spoken to many people who do hear the difference, and DO NOT consider it to be an improvement.)

But I do know that overall demand for MQA among our customers is relatively low...

(And this is even more true when asked: "Would you pay extra for it?")

(And do remember that you can run the Tidal client on your computer - and enjoy the benefits of that first important unfold - on ANY OF OUR GEAR.)

Which is why we have chosen not to divert development resources, and licensing costs, to adding it to our products...

 

Wow, a lengthy answer about how MQA works.. Thanks!

I guessed already that this would not be implemented.
But I was really asking if it is possible to implement full MQA after the fact.
Or does it need other hardware? I know that the DAC has its own MQA filter but
is that the only thing?

Btw most MQA tracks does not sound different to the standard 44.1/16 originals IMO.
Atleast when the first unfold has been done on it.
Some you clearly hear they have done something. Just for fun I compared Qobuz
176/24 to a MQA 96/24 first unfold. It was Michael Jackson - Thriller the album.
This was pretty shocking difference. For the first time MJ actually had some bass
in the songs.. In this example clearly I would prefer MQA.. Other tunes could be
the other way around. And some sound pretty much the same.

It’s actually feels the same as a remastered CD.. Sometimes you like it and sometimes
you don’t. Sometimes there’s pretty much only a volume difference.. 

But I guess you NEED the first unfold really.. I read somewhere that MQA tracks that
does not get the first unfold only does playback of about 13bits of the original because
of the way the format works.

[jbrunwa]

Oct 15, 2021 5:16:40 GMT -5 hsamwel said:

Oct 15, 2021 2:33:51 GMT -5 wizardofoz said:

Why is the XMC2 @84 so bad compared to the XMC1 @98?

Well.. The SINAD seems to take into account the distortion peaks..
While RMC-1 had lower peaks, it had them in the same place thus got higher SINAD.
If these peaks at 2, 3 and 5 khz have any impact on sound quality I don’t know.

But they are outside of the audible level anyway. I think it was below -90db for XMC-2.
RMC-1 measured below -100db for the same peaks.

But to say ASR measured wrong is false. Any gear should be measured at max input level.
Why Emotiva measures with -20db is strange.

At the risk of beating a dead horse… The XMC-2 measured -84dB in direct mode, which includes bass management. In the earlier review, the RMC-1 measured -100 dB in reference stereo mode after Emotiva tweaked the firmware. Emotiva has confirmed that the RMC-1 and XMC-2 performance is identical for the LCR channels. So I deduce that either firmware updates reduced SINAD by 15 dB, or that is the just the difference between reference stereo and direct modes. In any event, these differences are likely inaudible under normal listening conditions.

[hsamwel]

Oct 15, 2021 10:56:19 GMT -5 KeithL said:

Just to be fair here... the audible differences MQA produces involve mostly transients and high frequency extension.

There's really no reason to expect MQA processing to have a significant effect on bass response.

It's possible that improving the accuracy of upper harmonics might make the bass seem "clearer" or "cleaner" - but it shouldn't change the level of bass frequencies.

(So that difference is more likely due to some other aspect of the "reprocessing and remastering" of that album... like a bit of boost in the bass eq.)

As you say, with MQA content, you really do want the "first unfold".

In simplest terms, what MQA encoding does is to "steal the bottom few bits of the signal and use that space to store its extra information".

In practical terms music really has a dynamic range of, at most, around 90 dB.

Therefore, with a 24 bit file, losing the bottom three bits really won't be audible.

However, with a CD, or any other 16 bit file, it's really starting to cut into what might be audible.

Therefore you really do want to "get back some of the benefit for which you've sacrificed those bits".

This is another one of those instances where the technical explanations offered for MQA are somewhat vague...

Most MQA FILE downloads are offered as 24 bit files... so simply losing three bits of resolution is probably not going to be audible...

However a CD, which must be compatible with ordinary CD players, is limited to 16 bits...

This makes the situation rather different with "MQA CDs" than with "MQA files"...

(So, while I haven't actually tried it, I would expect playing back an "MQA CD" without that first unfold to cause a bigger loss of quality than doing the same with a 24 bit MQA file.)

Also, as you say, the amount of difference between MQA and non-MQA content varies widely... which suggests that a lot of it is due to the remastering rather than the MQA processing.

Another confusing factor is that, reportedly, some sources now supply everything in MQA, or don't clearly tell you which is which, which prevents you from actually comparing "the MQA and non-MQA versions".

(And, when a provider uses the MQA CODEC internally, as part of that processing at least some "MQA adjustment" will also be applied... there is no "bit-perfect option" with the MQA CODEC.)

What annoys many folks in the industry is that MQA is being marketed as a "package"...

So, for example, in theory a recording could be "processed, improved, and remastered" with MQA...

Then unfolded, converted to PCM, and offered as a 24/96k PCM download...

However this option is NEVER offered to we consumers...

(Arguably you would lose the benefits of MQA compression... but you'd have a file that could be played on any DAC.)

(MQA proponents would argue that you aren't getting the benefits of the second and third unfolds... which would be true... but you would be getting the benefits of "the remastering and correcting".)

(This is basically what you end up with when you do "the first unfold" in software, like Tidal's PC and Mac clients do, and then send it to a non-MQA DAC.)

Oct 15, 2021 4:30:01 GMT -5 hsamwel said:

Wow, a lengthy answer about how MQA works.. Thanks!

I guessed already that this would not be implemented.
But I was really asking if it is possible to implement full MQA after the fact.
Or does it need other hardware? I know that the DAC has its own MQA filter but
is that the only thing?

Btw most MQA tracks does not sound different to the standard 44.1/16 originals IMO.
Atleast when the first unfold has been done on it.
Some you clearly hear they have done something. Just for fun I compared Qobuz
176/24 to a MQA 96/24 first unfold. It was Michael Jackson - Thriller the album.
This was pretty shocking difference. For the first time MJ actually had some bass
in the songs.. In this example clearly I would prefer MQA.. Other tunes could be
the other way around. And some sound pretty much the same.

It’s actually feels the same as a remastered CD.. Sometimes you like it and sometimes
you don’t. Sometimes there’s pretty much only a volume difference.. 

But I guess you NEED the first unfold really.. I read somewhere that MQA tracks that
does not get the first unfold only does playback of about 13bits of the original because
of the way the format works.

Yes, I agree..

I never meant the Thriller difference being because of MQA.. It’s of course because of
remastering. But that’s also one of the aspects of MQA, atleast they say. They take the
master and make the most of it. Some old songs where released a long time ago when
the equipment weren’t as good as today. So many will benefit from a remaster.
But that’s also dependant on HOW the remastering is done.

Even though MQA is not fully lossless, it is still better than CD quality. If a full 192/24 PCM
sounds better it is most certainly because of mastering and not the format it is delivered
in. People can’t hear the difference if both has the same master.
But I guess some will say they do have golden ears..

I have Roon, with it you can connect to both TIDAL and Qobuz at the same time.
When you search for an album or artist you can select different versions of the same
track. There’s always several versions ranging from 44.1/16 to 192/24 and MQA with
TIDAL. This way you can  actually compare both ”fully lossless” to MQA and CD to Hires.
Roon does the first unfold as well. So none of your devices need to support MQA.

But you didn’t  answer if if it’s technically possible to add full MQA decoding/rendering
to for example RMC-1?
After this we should drop this subject. MQA should be discussed in its own thread.

[AudioHTIT]

Oct 15, 2021 2:33:51 GMT -5 wizardofoz said:

Why is the XMC2 @84 so bad compared to the XMC1 @98?

Thoroughly discussed here …
emotivalounge.proboards.com/post/1078155/thread

[scrubo]

I am thinking about taking advantage of trading in a receiver for RMC 1 or 1L. With the new firmware, did it resolve all the issues? Thanks

[bitzerjdb]

Oct 18, 2021 16:44:20 GMT -5 scrubo said:

I am thinking about taking advantage of trading in a receiver for RMC 1 or 1L. With the new firmware, did it resolve all the issues? Thanks

Honestly, read the thread you posted in and make up your own mind. "Did it resolve all the issues", No.... but, the issues left may or may not be an issue for you. This is a decision you and only you can make. Luckily, with the information in this Forum, you can make an informed decision... and leverage the Return Policy if it doesn't work for you.

[epikcloudz]

Thus far love tinkering with and listening to my XMC-2. However, just wanted to voice my concern about receiving the used Dirac Live kit I was sent shortly after purchasing the XMC. I understand that it slipped through the cracks when you shipped the XMC and forgot to include the kit. But you could have at least removed the scotch tape on the back of the switch and Raspberry Pi…lol.. Anyway, only reason I decided to even bring it up, the crappy little switch bit the dust which is probably why it was returned? I would suspect it’s got a longer life expectancy than 2 months. No worries though, I spent another $25 on a decent 8 port switch to keep things hooked up 24/7. Got a Mini DSP HD arriving Friday to get all my subs dialed in…👍

[Dreamer]

It's been quite a while ago that the last firmware update was issued. It appears there been an update every 5 months or so. Is the lifecycle of these processors over?
I wish they would offer an upgrade your XMC-2 into an RMC-1 or 1l program.........I would upgrade in an instant!

[ttocs]

Oct 20, 2021 18:26:00 GMT -5 Dreamer said:

It's been quite a while ago that the last firmware update was issued. It appears there been an update every 5 months or so. Is the lifecycle of these processors over?
I wish they would offer an upgrade your XMC-2 into an RMC-1 or 1l program.........I would upgrade in an instant!

I like this idea!
I would probably be interested in upgrading to an RMC-1.    

[Lsc]

Oct 18, 2021 16:44:20 GMT -5 scrubo said:

I am thinking about taking advantage of trading in a receiver for RMC 1 or 1L. With the new firmware, did it resolve all the issues? Thanks

Hopefully you will get a good one. I can only say my XMC2 has been mostly trouble free but too many folks had issues to which I don’t know the root cause but it’s enough to keep me from recommending these processors.

If I had to do it all over again, I probably would have bought the Monoprice so I can have DLBC. 2021 is almost over and we didn’t get DLBC yet nor any communication of when it would be delivered. And the belief that these processors sound better has been largely proven false.

[cawgijoe]

Oct 20, 2021 18:26:00 GMT -5 Dreamer said:

It's been quite a while ago that the last firmware update was issued. It appears there been an update every 5 months or so. Is the lifecycle of these processors over?
I wish they would offer an upgrade your XMC-2 into an RMC-1 or 1l program.........I would upgrade in an instant!

I would likely upgrade to a 1l....depending on cost.....just really like the look!

[Hair Nick]

We offer trade in pricing on pretty much all our gear. Give us a call and talk to sales 615-790-6754 or send an email to [e-mail] , I'm sure they will work something out with you going from the XMC-2 trading up.

[jbrunwa]

Oct 20, 2021 21:36:47 GMT -5 Lsc said:

Oct 18, 2021 16:44:20 GMT -5 scrubo said:

I am thinking about taking advantage of trading in a receiver for RMC 1 or 1L. With the new firmware, did it resolve all the issues? Thanks

Hopefully you will get a good one. I can only say my XMC2 has been mostly trouble free but too many folks had issues to which I don’t know the root cause but it’s enough to keep me from recommending these processors.

If I had to do it all over again, I probably would have bought the Monoprice so I can have DLBC. 2021 is almost over and we didn’t get DLBC yet nor any communication of when it would be delivered. And the belief that these processors sound better has been largely proven false.

I think I’m in the same boat on switching.  If the bass management bug and other bugs gets fixed and DLBC option becomes available, I will likely keep the XMC-2, otherwise I will sell it and buy the Monoprice or the upcoming Onkyo.

[epikcloudz]

Oct 21, 2021 9:55:58 GMT -5 Hair Nick said:

We offer trade in pricing on pretty much all our gear. Give us a call and talk to sales 615-790-6754 or send an email to [e-mail] , I'm sure they will work something out with you going from the XMC-2 trading up.

Out of curiosity I contacted sales this morning to follow up on this. So if I’m tracking things correctly, which I am, they would be willing to give me $1,500 off a RMC 1 or 1L trading in my two month old XMC-2.

Or, I could head down to the local Salvation Army and pick up some 25 year old AVR that doesn’t even work for $20 and get $1,000 off with the “Bring us your dead” promo.

Guess that’s better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, and it’s nice that Emotiva is even providing me with this option (I get it). However, I’ll take the poke in the eye and wear a patch👍

Great option if you’re considering switching to Emotiva, but screams F/U to existing customers. This my friends is why there’s no such thing as brand loyalty any longer. Just my thoughts..and yes I’m still happy with my XMC-2 purchase.

Please keep in mind, I’m saying this as a new customer that dropped $5,500 on Emotiva gear, didn’t receive the DIrac kit when my XMC and Amp shipped. Then paid $30 for overnight shipping to calibrate sh**, then upon receipt of the kit, found it was a used kit with scotch tape rolls on the backs of the switch and Pi to obviously attach them to something, and to top it all off the switch included in the kit is now dead and doesn’t even power on, so I’ve since replaced it…. All 100% factual and not a peep from me to anyone at Emotiva about it. Call me crazy… $1,500 for my 2 month old XMC-2, that’s adding way too much insult to injury at this point, just saying…

[yeeeha17]

Oct 21, 2021 12:42:37 GMT -5 jbrunwa said:

Oct 20, 2021 21:36:47 GMT -5 Lsc said:

Hopefully you will get a good one. I can only say my XMC2 has been mostly trouble free but too many folks had issues to which I don’t know the root cause but it’s enough to keep me from recommending these processors.

If I had to do it all over again, I probably would have bought the Monoprice so I can have DLBC. 2021 is almost over and we didn’t get DLBC yet nor any communication of when it would be delivered. And the belief that these processors sound better has been largely proven false.

I think I’m in the same boat on switching.  If the bass management bug and other bugs gets fixed and DLBC option becomes available, I will likely keep the XMC-2, otherwise I will sell it and buy the Monoprice or the upcoming Onkyo.

I’m in the same boat!!! I only jumped on an XMC-2 because Emotiva decided to put an expiration date on the 40% card. My bugs are easily fix by switching Inputs and back or do a full reboot. It’s been awhile since a new firmware has been release. I’m hoping that they don’t think there isn’t any bugs left to fix. This thing is far from being bug free.

[cawgijoe]

Oct 21, 2021 13:12:17 GMT -5 yeeeha17 said:

Oct 21, 2021 12:42:37 GMT -5 jbrunwa said:

I think I’m in the same boat on switching.  If the bass management bug and other bugs gets fixed and DLBC option becomes available, I will likely keep the XMC-2, otherwise I will sell it and buy the Monoprice or the upcoming Onkyo.

I’m in the same boat!!! I only jumped on an XMC-2 because Emotiva decided to put an expiration date on the 40% card. My bugs are easily fix by switching Inputs and back or do a full reboot. It’s been awhile since a new firmware has been release. I’m hoping that they don’t think there isn’t any bugs left to fix. This thing is far from being bug free.

I traded my xmc-1 on the 2 because of the fantastic deal. No regrets.

The unit is not bug free, but for my current 5.1 system, I have not had any bugs rear their ugly heads lately. No complaints from the family. Again, that is with my simple system. I'm sure they have been and are working on testing for bugs that have been presented to them. Testing and solution does take time.

[Hair Nick]

Oct 21, 2021 12:53:24 GMT -5 epikcloudz said:

Oct 21, 2021 9:55:58 GMT -5 Hair Nick said:

We offer trade in pricing on pretty much all our gear. Give us a call and talk to sales 615-790-6754 or send an email to [e-mail] , I'm sure they will work something out with you going from the XMC-2 trading up.

Out of curiosity I contacted sales this morning to follow up on this. So if I’m tracking things correctly, which I am, they would be willing to give me $1,500 off a RMC 1 or 1L trading in my two month old XMC-2.

Or, I could head down to the local Salvation Army and pick up some 25 year old AVR that doesn’t even work for $20 and get $1,000 off with the “Bring us your dead” promo.

Guess that’s better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, and it’s nice that Emotiva is even providing me with this option (I get it). However, I’ll take the poke in the eye and wear a patch👍

Great option if you’re considering switching to Emotiva, but screams F/U to existing customers. This my friends is why there’s no such thing as brand loyalty any longer. Just my thoughts..and yes I’m still happy with my XMC-2 purchase.

Please keep in mind, I’m saying this as a new customer that dropped $5,500 on Emotiva gear, didn’t receive the DIrac kit when my XMC and Amp shipped. Then paid $30 for overnight shipping to calibrate sh**, then upon receipt of the kit, found it was a used kit with scotch tape rolls on the backs of the switch and Pi to obviously attach them to something, and to top it all off the switch included in the kit is now dead and doesn’t even power on, so I’ve since replaced it…. All 100% factual and not a peep from me to anyone at Emotiva about it. Call me crazy… $1,500 for my 2 month old XMC-2, that’s adding way too much insult to injury at this point, just saying…

Who did you contact about your kit issue?

The kit wasn't used. The shipping department was adding tape to parts of the kit to try and keep it from shifting around during transit since we had received messages from users that had damaged kits from the way they were being handled in shipping. I think shipping handlers were treating them like frisbees.