Lonnie
Emo Staff 
admin
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
Posts: 6,999
|
Post by Lonnie on Sept 7, 2021 20:28:27 GMT -5
OK, I think I need to clarify a little here. As with anything there are decisions that are made. In this case the performance was optimized for real world use vs. bench test. We could offset the input to the DSP so no harmonics would ever show up under any circumstances but then we would be throwing away a lot of real world headroom. We chose to optimize the performance to real world use so that with an input signal of -20db the ground floor noise is roughly 145db down and thus you would get a SINAD of somewhere around 110 to 112db. By doing this the harmonics will only show up under huge dynamic peaks and even at that, they are 85db down from the fundamental. Which means they are completely inaudible because they are swamped by the fundamental and even if you were to play it at a normal listening level, it’s still 30db below room noise, again inaudible. Basically the whole mountain out of a mole hill adage.  I still don’t understand the differences between the RMC1 and XMC2. Maybe it’s what ASR said on the test parameters… “ The main difference is that I was only driving two channels and they are driving all 8. Someone commented that the bug in bass management may be the problem here and this would sort of point to that direction.” “ Sample rate is also different (mine is 44.1 kHz and theirs is 48 khz). Also, the have set the bandwidth to 20 kHz whereas mine extends to 22.4 kHz.” Bottom line here is, regardless of how important one measurement is vs others, the RMC1 and XMC1 are two of the highest measuring processors while the XMC2 resides in the “poor” category. I had a chance to buy the RMC1L with a 40% card someone gifted me at the end of last year but didn’t feel the need. Had I known that technically the XMC2 was inferior, I probably would have pulled the trigger. It’s a bummer of a day for me and other XMC2 owners. Our 2 channel performance is inferior to the RMC units - which is contrary to our conversation at Axpona  . See the post above. |
|
|
|
Post by autocrat on Sept 7, 2021 20:42:12 GMT -5
|
|
Lonnie
Emo Staff
admin
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
Posts: 6,999
|
Post by Lonnie on Sept 7, 2021 20:46:25 GMT -5
Neither do I. Nothing has changed and all come up with the exact same specs when tested. All our testing procedures are the same as they have always been with the exception that we have added a couple of hundred additional test. I guess what I’m saying is the test we ran way back when is still be done we just keep building on the test as things progress.
So I have no clue what he did different.,
Lonnie
|
|
|
|
Post by derwin on Sept 7, 2021 20:48:48 GMT -5
One last thing, the XMC-2 for the main channels measures EXACTLY the same as the RMC-1 and always has. Nothing has changed gents. If I remember correctly Amir tested the RMC-1 at -20db. Lonnie I agree with most of your assessment about noise floors and audibility. My push here is that the units were both tested at 3.8 V outputs. Could you walk us through how the two units performed differently at the same output voltage? I don’t mean to keep pushing on this, but as an XMC owner, it feels really important to double check that we’ve got the same performance as an RMC. I’m just trying to make everything add up and explaining where I don’t get it yet. Maybe could you run an RMC unit through the exact same test you ran on that XMC to show they are in fact the same? |
|
Lonnie
Emo Staff
admin
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
Posts: 6,999
|
Post by Lonnie on Sept 7, 2021 20:51:56 GMT -5
Oh, that is easy. The input vs. output Voltage are two totally different things. I can easily set the input level to -20 and get 4v out just by adjusting the volume.
Doing this will give you the ideal results, which I believe is what he did when he tested the RMC-1 but that was sometime back so I could be wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Sept 7, 2021 20:52:45 GMT -5
I have been an Emotiva fan for over a decade, purchasing many of their products; when Emotiva released their 3rd generation amplifiers, I felt the company changed. For the first time, Emotiva started hiding its product specifications. No longer would I see AP test results on their website for all to see. The push for transparency. That's what brought me to Emotiva in the first place. Something has changed.
I had many ups and down with the Emotiva XMC-1 processor, waited years for its Atmos implementation, traversing many software bugs. When all my hope was lost, Big Dan and the team came in strong with the XMC-1 to XMC-2/RMC-1 upgrade program. I had a choice to make, get an RMC-1 or XMC-2. I went with the latter since everyone at the Emotiva camp said the RMC-1 equals the XMC-2 SSP minus the AKM mono-mode chip configuration for the surrounds channel.
Today, I see Lonnie's XMC-2 AP test result in shock. Thanks to Amir, the XMC-2 specification veil is finally lifted. For the first time, I felt betrayed by Emotiva. The XMC-2 is not the same as the RMC-1 (minus the surround AKM mono-mode) as promised. After years of dealing with software issues and quality control, I have bad taste in my mouth; Emotiva is no longer the company I once cherished.
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Sept 7, 2021 20:58:03 GMT -5
One last thing, the XMC-2 for the main channels measures EXACTLY the same as the RMC-1 and always has. Nothing has changed gents. If I remember correctly Amir tested the RMC-1 at -20db. Lonnie That’s what we all would expect, especially if you pull two units off the line with the same firmware, and that’s reassuring. The ‘controversy’ I think is that the RMC-1 ASR measured some time back, tested much better than the XMC-2 just measured. Most of us would expect different firmware might cause that, but other theories have also been voiced. Are you saying here that he may have tested the RMC-1 at -20 and the XMC-2 at 0? Edit: I see posted below that the RMC-1 was also at 0 (but different firmware). |
|
|
|
Post by louron on Sept 7, 2021 20:59:35 GMT -5
No , if referring to the RMC-1 testing with 1.9 firmware it was at 4 volts also( 3.87 and 3.854) . |
|
|
|
Post by louron on Sept 7, 2021 21:01:21 GMT -5
One last thing, the XMC-2 for the main channels measures EXACTLY the same as the RMC-1 and always has. Nothing has changed gents. If I remember correctly Amir tested the RMC-1 at -20db. Lonnie I agree with most of your assessment about noise floors and audibility. My push here is that the units were both tested at 3.8 V outputs. Could you walk us through how the two units performed differently at the same output voltage? I don’t mean to keep pushing on this, but as an XMC owner, it feels really important to double check that we’ve got the same performance as an RMC. I’m just trying to make everything add up and explaining where I don’t get it yet. Maybe could you run an RMC unit through the exact same test you ran on that XMC to show they are in fact the same? Agree with you 100% |
|
timg
Minor Hero
Posts: 71
|
Post by timg on Sept 7, 2021 21:03:13 GMT -5
I would love to see manufacturers, including Emotiva, publish real specifications with charts and graphs from AP or similar measuring devices. If you do this proactively, it also gives you the ability to shape the narrative regarding typical input signal levels and SINAD at those levels vs. at peaks as Lonnie did above. Monoprice also had to make similar arguments about their processor. All design is based in tradeoffs. There is no perfect and normally improving one thing costs you something else. With real measurements + commentary, you may also find out why some equipment which measures poorly at one test point, performs well (sounds good) in the real world. This could also indicate why a machine which has been tuned to pass a test, may perform poorly (sound bad) in the real world.
On the automotive side, I live by a pretty simple rule. If the OEM doesn't publish compressor maps, turbine maps, legitimate fuel injector data, fuel pump test data, etc., I won't buy their product. Unfortunately, there's nobody in the home theater realm who passes this test right now.
Tim
Quick additional note- both input and output levels are mentioned above, often interchangeably. -20 dB doesn't necessarily mean -20 on the volume knob. It can mean -20 on the input. The volume knob controls output gain. You can mix and match these to get to 4 V RMS on the outputs. Any filters, level setting internally, or DSP will also impact the relationship between input level and output level. If you play with REW, you will see this first hand. REW outputs a signal at your chosen level (-20, -12, 0 dbfs, etc.) and then you can adjust the volume knob on the processor to achieve a desired SPL level.
|
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Sept 7, 2021 21:07:01 GMT -5
Sorry but they are not the same. ASR RMC-1 measurements pre-firmware 1.9: www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/emotiva-rmc-1-av-processor-review.11673/ Post RMC-1 SSP Firmware 1.9 Update
Amir helped Emotiva fix some issues with the firmware producing better results. One last thing, the XMC-2 for the main channels measures EXACTLY the same as the RMC-1 and always has. Nothing has changed gents. If I remember correctly Amir tested the RMC-1 at -20db. Lonnie |
|
|
|
Post by JKCashin on Sept 7, 2021 21:12:18 GMT -5
Today, I see Lonnie's XMC-2 AP test result in shock. I have yet to see confirmation that both the RMC-1 and the XMC-2 were tested in exactly the same way, so until that is confirmed, OR the tests are re-done in the same way, we cannot come to any conclusion. |
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Sept 7, 2021 21:18:07 GMT -5
|
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs 
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 5,033
|
Post by cawgijoe on Sept 7, 2021 21:19:55 GMT -5
If I understand correctly how the errant XMC-2 was measured it was at 0db which would be ear bleeding level, amp blowing, speaker blowing levels the same as if you ran a source device rated at 2 volts RMS directly into an amp without a preamp in the mix. Even at -20 db for the test is way louder than most people could stay in a room with. With our XMC-1 we were typically at -32 db for most movies and TV series. I routinely listen at -20db and even louder... I think the figure displayed on the front panel is not the whole story though. Last night for example we watched a movie off Netflix at about -15db... it was perfect. Impactful, but not "too loud". When it was over, we loaded YouTube and darn near blew the couch back up to the wall. OK, not really, but it was "too loud". So... the question is, and the answer may already be provided in the ASR review, how "loud" was the input source? For Directv, we listen at -24….to -28. Apple TV 4K it all depends on the provider….Apple Originals…..-20…..Discovery + , -30…..I find each source to be different. |
|
|
|
Post by JKCashin on Sept 7, 2021 21:45:17 GMT -5
JK, It was already tested the same way by Amir. Lonnie results are in line with what Amir is presenting minus the channel N number sync issues Amir found. I have yet to see confirmation that both the RMC-1 and the XMC-2 were tested in exactly the same way, so until that is confirmed, OR the tests are re-done in the same way, we cannot come to any conclusion. OK I must have missed that, thanks. |
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,434
|
Post by Lsc on Sept 7, 2021 21:46:19 GMT -5
Yes I read it after my post. Ok thank you! I still don’t understand the measurement differences but maybe it’s just over my head. You guys also posted the RMC1 measurements from your side and it was not as low as 85. I thought it was 94 or somewhere along those lines. |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Sept 7, 2021 21:54:31 GMT -5
But still the variable of firmware. |
|
timg
Minor Hero
Posts: 71
|
Post by timg on Sept 7, 2021 22:05:46 GMT -5
I routinely listen at -20db and even louder... I think the figure displayed on the front panel is not the whole story though. Last night for example we watched a movie off Netflix at about -15db... it was perfect. Impactful, but not "too loud". When it was over, we loaded YouTube and darn near blew the couch back up to the wall. OK, not really, but it was "too loud". So... the question is, and the answer may already be provided in the ASR review, how "loud" was the input source? For Directv, we listen at -24….to -28. Apple TV 4K it all depends on the provider….Apple Originals…..-20…..Discovery + , -30…..I find each source to be different. That's output level/output gain. 0 dBFS input/source level can result in no output if the volume knob / output level is turned down. -0 dBFS, -12 dBFS, or -20 dBFS are often used for input signal levels during other testing. There's quite a bit of discussion about this above and in the articles below. www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/article-understanding-digital-audio-measurements.10523/www.hometheatershack.com/threads/gain-structure-for-home-theater-getting-the-most-from-pro-audio-equipment-in-your-system.35677/support.biamp.com/General/Audio/Gain_structure%3A_input_and_output_levels |
|
|
|
Post by Ex_Vintage on Sept 7, 2021 22:26:28 GMT -5
Audible or not, objective measurements provide a relative indication as to the "state of the art". Most people will disregard poor relative measurements because they are invested in their purchases (they paid good money for it). Measurements, as long as they are technically accurate with repeatability and re-reproducibility are valuable to the average consumer as a indicator of the attention to detail that the designer has taken to create a product. Many of us do not have the luxury of doing comparative listening of multiple suppliers of a piece of equipment due to a lack of businesses that will, or can accommodate that. Focusing on measurements is a minor obsession in a hobby that has participants fretting about interconnects, power conditioners, power cords, equipment isolation, absorption, diffusion.... Bottom line is if you want pure 2 channel performance, a Pre-pro is not your best choice (unless of course you like it)
|
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Sept 7, 2021 23:23:16 GMT -5
Should the newer firmware had these fixes? But still the variable of firmware. |
|
. 
