|
|
Post by JKCashin on Sept 5, 2021 23:27:56 GMT -5
Came here to see what the response was to the ASR review... somehow he measured the RMC-1 in his "green" zone, but the XMC-2 in his "red" zone. I don't get this as they are topologically the same.... does not make sensse. Is this guy a quack? www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/emotiva-xmc-2-review-av-processor.26378/EDIT TO ADD: I don't know why people think I am trying to denigrate the ASR author. I was ASKING, not accusing. Is he credible. Apparently taking the shortcut of asking "Is this guy a quack?" as opposed to "does this person know what they are talking about" struck some kind of nerve. I will leave the original question for context, but the question remains... how is it possible that two topologicaly identical pathways could measure so differently? With so many positive reviews (albeit subjective) could it be that the author did not follow proper procedure, and if so, is this endemic or is it a one-off for that individual? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2021 1:42:35 GMT -5
His review until his conclusion or recommendation doesn't include much of a narrative to alter anyone's perception. I'm sure salesman will follow suit and do that. The measurements are simply that. The author specifically states that the 2 measures worse than 1 period. Before making the accusation of whether the guy is a quack I suggest obtaining the same measuring instruments and perform the tests. That is the scientific method: observation, repeatability, and testability. If someone can't peer review his findings then one only offers a non scientific narrative. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Sept 6, 2021 2:27:42 GMT -5
ehhhh..... I've seen better performance from amplifiers (!!). Now will you hear the distortion? Highly doubt it. I see that Emotiva doesn't advertise the distortion specs or provide AP measurements.  Pity, they used to do that. One thing that is sad is that the channels are not in sync. It's rare that you'll see preamps show that problem in the test. |
|
|
|
Post by bolle on Sept 6, 2021 4:36:10 GMT -5
The guy is not a quack. Look at his RMC-1 review and also the re-review after Emotiva made firmware changes based on his testing...
Most worrying imho is the delay between the channels which seems to be frequency based - so you will get all kind of strange interaction between your speakers in the room which are almost impossible to correct.
I wrote it years before, imho Emotiva needs to step up their quality assurance process big time. Stuff like this can be found quite easily with automated testing. No reason to not do that!
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Sept 6, 2021 4:58:30 GMT -5
It would seem SOP to list what firmware you’re testing with, we can only assume it’s current. It is interesting that it measures and ranks so much differently that the RMC-1.
|
|
|
|
Post by JKCashin on Sept 6, 2021 6:30:12 GMT -5
His review until his conclusion or recommendation doesn't include much of a narrative to alter your perception. I'm sure salesman will follow suit and do that. The measurements are simply that. The author specifically states that the 2 measures worse than 1 period. Before making the accusation of whether the guy is a quack I suggest you obtain the same measuring instruments and perform the tests. That is the scientific method: observation, repeatability, and testability. If you can't peer review his findings then you only offer a non scientific narrative. I find your accusation that I don't understand the scientificic methd rather amusing. The XMC-2 and the RMC-1 are topologcally THE SAME in stereo. This is exactly why I asked the question. His measurements, if taken scientifically as you say, should have been near identical. Given that the two units should have been nearly identical, and they measured so differentily under his method, I am asking if he is a quack, not accusing him of being one. |
|
|
|
Post by bolle on Sept 6, 2021 6:38:54 GMT -5
More likely as a root cause imho are the firmware changes by Emotiva since the RMC-1 reviews.
|
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 3,435
|
Post by Lsc on Sept 6, 2021 7:41:06 GMT -5
Just speculation but I think it may be variations in manufacturing and/or quality control issues.
Like you guys are saying, L/R is identical to the RMC1 per Emotiva. Exactly the same hardware so the expectation is that the XMC2 should measure the same as the RMC1 (or at least very close).
My XMC2 that I got day 1 sound great…I actually offered to send my unit but Amir said he was back logged.
Does anyone know if Emotiva runs some sort of performance test after assembly to ensure the unit meets spec? Or do they just make sure that it turns on and the menu functions before shipping?
|
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Sept 6, 2021 7:48:44 GMT -5
It would be worthwhile to hear Amir speak for himself on his methods and experience. www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhcJC7i_j3II agree with the idea that XMC-2 and RMC-1 should not be that different. That said, I also understand Amir's statement about joining a company to fix a product and finding it had so many issues that the prudent thing to do was scrap it and start over. I've personally been in that situation. Not that I think the XMC-2 is hopeless, but clearly the "two steps forward, one step back" that we have been experiencing indicates some fundamental issues (hardware, software or bio-ware) that are difficult to get under control. If you watch the interview you'll see that Amir is open to dialogue with manufacturers and resolving any issues. Maybe he and Lonnie will have a chat. |
|
|
|
Post by bolle on Sept 6, 2021 8:05:40 GMT -5
That actually happened with the RMC-1 (discussion between Emo and Amir with a positive outcome) so fingers crossed. Would be interesting to see if the RMC-1 with current firmware also measures like the XMC-2. Any volunteers with a RMC-1 not used ATM?
|
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Sept 6, 2021 8:29:59 GMT -5
He talks about the back and forth with Schiit after his initial bad review. They simply had not measured the product properly, and once he pointed out the issues they fixed them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2021 8:37:05 GMT -5
His review until his conclusion or recommendation doesn't include much of a narrative to alter your perception. I'm sure salesman will follow suit and do that. The measurements are simply that. The author specifically states that the 2 measures worse than 1 period. Before making the accusation of whether the guy is a quack I suggest you obtain the same measuring instruments and perform the tests. That is the scientific method: observation, repeatability, and testability. If you can't peer review his findings then you only offer a non scientific narrative. I find your accusation that I don't understand the scientificic methd rather amusing. The XMC-2 and the RMC-1 are topologcally THE SAME in stereo. This is exactly why I asked the question. His measurements, if taken scientifically as you say, should have been near identical. Given that the two units should have been nearly identical, and they measured so differentily under his method, I am asking if he is a quack, not accusing him of being one. Can this guy even comprehend? I find these observations rather likewise amusing. The products are not exactly the same yet they are being expected to have near identical results. I am asking whether this guy can comprehend and not accusing him of being an illiterate. |
|
|
|
Post by donh50 on Sept 6, 2021 8:55:51 GMT -5
Maybe a FW bug, hopefully one that can be remedied, and not some sort of HW issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by brutiarti on Sept 6, 2021 9:04:44 GMT -5
I saw a few mistakes/overlooks like a wrong subtraction or using the wrong model for example. People making those mistakes on a published article tells me that the person is careless or is getting older and must retire soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by donh50 on Sept 6, 2021 9:12:44 GMT -5
I saw a few mistakes/overlooks like a wrong subtraction or using the wrong model for example. People making those mistakes on a published article tells me that the person is careless or is getting older and must retire soon. Many people don't check online articles as rigorously as printed and Amir does a myriad of reviews at all hours. I tend to look at the data and not the reviewer. For that matter, I used to review for the IEEE JSSC, and you would probably lose all respect for the authors of some of those articles if grammar was all that mattered. Technical mistakes should be corrected, of course. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2021 9:21:48 GMT -5
I saw a few mistakes/overlooks like a wrong subtraction or using the wrong model for example. People making those mistakes on a published article tells me that the person is careless or is getting older and must retire soon. A lot can be observed through preliminary drafts and final editing to assure quality content. I imagine that having an editor works towards the overall credibility of a publication. See marcl's comment above  |
|
|
|
Post by brutiarti on Sept 6, 2021 10:00:12 GMT -5
I saw a few mistakes/overlooks like a wrong subtraction or using the wrong model for example. People making those mistakes on a published article tells me that the person is careless or is getting older and must retire soon. Many people don't check online articles as rigorously as printed and Amir does a myriad of reviews at all hours. I tend to look at the data and not the reviewer. For that matter, I used to review for the IEEE JSSC, and you would probably lose all respect for the authors of some of those articles if grammar was all that mattered. Technical mistakes should be correct, of course. I understand that is busy doing tons of reviews but I expect those mistakes from the subjective reviewer that writes a poem about the sound not from a sharp mind that does technical measurements. It’s just an observation that I see happening in the workforce. |
|
|
|
Post by donh50 on Sept 6, 2021 10:07:28 GMT -5
Many people don't check online articles as rigorously as printed and Amir does a myriad of reviews at all hours. I tend to look at the data and not the reviewer. For that matter, I used to review for the IEEE JSSC, and you would probably lose all respect for the authors of some of those articles if grammar was all that mattered. Technical mistakes should be correct, of course. I understand that is busy doing tons of reviews but I expect those mistakes from the subjective reviewer that writes a poem about the sound not from a sharp mind that does technical measurements. It’s just an observation that I see happening in the workforce. Apparently your experience with the writing and proofing skills of engineers differs greatly from mine. Now to go fix a typo I just saw in my previous post, blah. |
|
|
|
Post by brutiarti on Sept 6, 2021 10:19:03 GMT -5
I understand that is busy doing tons of reviews but I expect those mistakes from the subjective reviewer that writes a poem about the sound not from a sharp mind that does technical measurements. It’s just an observation that I see happening in the workforce. Apparently your experience with the writing and proofing skills of engineers differs greatly from mine. Now to go fix a typo I just saw in my previous post, blah. Seems like. A good portion of them don’t like to make mistakes and recheck everything IMO |
|
|
|
Post by donh50 on Sept 6, 2021 10:33:12 GMT -5
Apparently your experience with the writing and proofing skills of engineers differs greatly from mine. Now to go fix a typo I just saw in my previous post, blah. Seems like. A good portion of them don’t like to make mistakes and recheck everything IMO During design, and in the lab, yeah, but writing is not something many do well, again IME. Some of the very best engineers I have known had some of the worst writing skills and depended heavily upon proofreaders and editors. So I am less likely to base the quality of engineering on the quality of writing and start slamming the author's credibility. And I find it easier to make mistakes these days since spell check can easily place a rightly-spelled but wrong word in context and then there is no squiggly line to flag the author of the mistake. But all this debate trying to denigrate or excuse the writing is a side note to the actual results of the measurements. The LF rise is intriguing; I wonder if it is related to the known bass management bug. |
|
Pity, they used to do that. One thing that is sad is that the channels are not in sync. It's rare that you'll see preamps show that problem in the test. 
