|
|
Post by donh50 on Sept 9, 2021 11:23:57 GMT -5
If I spend the $$ to buy a TOTL product, then yes, I do want to know that a lot of time was spent on getting the distortion as low as possible. Or at least better than the competition. Otherwise, I would spend my money on a more inexpensive product as long as it had the features I wanted. Having said that, though these numbers aren't going to make anyone jump for joy, the distortion is likely inaudible. Usually the people the spend the big bucks don’t care about those things. They care about how they make them feel. In the other hand, the people that don’t have the coin to get those things, they need to find the reasons why they would never get those. I have my old XMC-1 waiting to trade in. Hoping the final bugs get wringed out in the XMC-2/RMC-1 FW as that is more important to me than the base performance, which is good enough and comparable (assuming the latest measurements match previous RMC-1 data) to other AVR/AVPs. As for not having the coin, the reason I can wait is because I picked up a JBL SDP-75 (Trinnov Altitude 32) instead, and it has not had the user interface bugs being reported here as well as numerous other features. Most of the folk seem curious as to why the performance hit and how it can be resolved, less interested in attacking everyone who disagrees. |
|
|
|
Post by louron on Sept 9, 2021 11:27:20 GMT -5
What varied from the original XMC2 test you guys ran showing -85 dB 2nd harmonic? The difference is in the input signal level. The system is optimized for -20dbfs which is what your cable box, APT, Streamer, Blueray and everything else in the world is set to. Amir was running it at 0dbfs, which I can see that if you are testing a simple device like a DAC and if my memory serves me correctly, -20dbfs is what he originally tested the RMC-1 at. Lonnie Is it? I thought it was 0 dbfs too? Isn’t it showed in the graph? Thanks Lonnie. Somehow I can’t see the pdf you posted. |
|
|
|
Post by tabbycph on Sept 9, 2021 11:43:57 GMT -5
The difference is in the input signal level. The system is optimized for -20dbfs which is what your cable box, APT, Streamer, Blueray and everything else in the world is set to. Amir was running it at 0dbfs, which I can see that if you are testing a simple device like a DAC and if my memory serves me correctly, -20dbfs is what he originally tested the RMC-1 at. Lonnie Is it? I thought it was 0 dbfs too? Isn’t it showed in the graph? Thanks Lonnie. Somehow I can’t see the pdf you posted. The original is at 0db www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/emotiva-rmc-1-av-processor-review.11673/ |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Sept 9, 2021 11:59:15 GMT -5
If I spend the $$ to buy a TOTL product, then yes, I do want to know that a lot of time was spent on getting the distortion as low as possible. Or at least better than the competition. Otherwise, I would spend my money on a more inexpensive product as long as it had the features I wanted. Having said that, though these numbers aren't going to make anyone jump for joy, the distortion is likely inaudible. "...distortion is likely inaudible." That is true. So the misgivings are psychological more than anything else. Pure sound-wise, not knowing any of the measurements but only having your ears to be the judge, what difference would a review/measurement make if it sounded good to you? I hear what you're saying and I would want to think the cost of the product is justified but then it kind of gets into something like, you have a product for which you paid list price and then you have a friend who tells you they got the same thing for 40% off. So does that change your opinion of your product? In the end, it is your experience with the unit that truly matters. BUT.... let's be real. Why are we going for a processor? Because it's supposed to perform better than an AVR right? Well an AVR can do these kind of measurements. Why are We spending that extra money for a processor if it's distortion level is at that of an AVR? Emotiva has got to hook people in to make them willing to listen to something. I think at this point, what's happened is there is a new generation of DAC products out there with unbelievably good measurements. Before, we didn't quite have these, but now we do. So this leaves a good amount of products in the "last-generation" which seems hopelessly outdated compared to the new crop of ultra-low distortion units. Back in the day, we were used to things like 60hz bump from the power supply, high noise floors. But nowadays it's just not the case. Right now there are DACs that are matching the distortion limits of the instruments and able to reproduce nearly 24 bits of resolution. I mean that's nuts right? But these dacs aren't super expensive anymore. It's a new generation and Emotiva has to keep up to stay in the game. I know they can do it. They just have to be willing. |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Sept 9, 2021 12:04:40 GMT -5
"...distortion is likely inaudible." That is true. So the misgivings are psychological more than anything else. Pure sound-wise, not knowing any of the measurements but only having your ears to be the judge, what difference would a review/measurement make if it sounded good to you? I hear what you're saying and I would want to think the cost of the product is justified but then it kind of gets into something like, you have a product for which you paid list price and then you have a friend who tells you they got the same thing for 40% off. So does that change your opinion of your product? In the end, it is your experience with the unit that truly matters. BUT.... let's be real. Why are we going for a processor? Because it's supposed to perform better than an AVR right? Well an AVR can do these kind of measurements. Why are We spending that extra money for a processor if it's distortion level is at that of an AVR? Emotiva has got to hook people in to make them willing to listen to something. I think at this point, what's happened is there is a new generation of DAC products out there with unbelievably good measurements. Before, we didn't quite have these, but now we do. So this leaves a good amount of products in the "last-generation" which seems hopelessly outdated compared to the new crop of ultra-low distortion units. Back in the day, we were used to things like 60hz bump from the power supply, high noise floors. But nowadays it's just not the case. Right now there are DACs that are matching the distortion limits of the instruments and able to reproduce nearly 24 bits of resolution. I mean that's nuts right? But these dacs aren't super expensive anymore. It's a new generation and Emotiva has to keep up to stay in the game. I know they can do it. They just have to be willing. You are right, we go for processors because they are supposed to be better than AVR's. Hey, we're audiophiles! Now I am always reading tons of posts from people who claim they have separates because they sound better than the integrated stuff. But in a blind test, could they really tell? How many of us have "unnecessary" equipment, that is, stuff that in reality doesn't sound any different from cheaper stuff? A lot of it is psychological and that is what marketing plays to. In the end, I think that we should just go for whatever makes us feel the best about owning, something that is pleasing to our ears. The more we think and analyze, though, the more the grass is greener on the other side. |
|
|
|
Post by brutiarti on Sept 9, 2021 12:07:38 GMT -5
Usually the people the spend the big bucks don’t care about those things. They care about how they make them feel. In the other hand, the people that don’t have the coin to get those things, they need to find the reasons why they would never get those. I have my old XMC-1 waiting to trade in. Hoping the final bugs get wringed out in the XMC-2/RMC-1 FW as that is more important to me than the base performance, which is good enough and comparable (assuming the latest measurements match previous RMC-1 data) to other AVR/AVPs. As for not having the coin, the reason I can wait is because I picked up a JBL SDP-75 (Trinnov Altitude 32) instead, and it has not had the user interface bugs being reported here as well as numerous other features. Most of the folk seem curious as to why the performance hit and how it can be resolved, less interested in attacking everyone who disagrees. I know a couple of people that own Trinnov and they have them professional installed in their teathers and do not care about any measurments. They just care that they can watch movies with their families and have a good time. That’s all |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Sept 9, 2021 12:19:59 GMT -5
If I understand correctly Lonnie is referring to the 0 dBfs input level of the test signal (or rather in his case -20), I’m not sure, but believe in the ASR post, he is referring to 0 dB on the volume control (or output). As mentioned earlier, there’s a lot of ways to get to 4V and some ways measure better than others. This points to what has also been mentioned, knowing a standardized testing method. Do you see where ASR says 0 dBfs? |
|
richb
Sensei
Oppo Beta Group - Audioholics Reviewer
Posts: 890
|
Post by richb on Sept 9, 2021 12:23:41 GMT -5
What varied from the original XMC2 test you guys ran showing -85 dB 2nd harmonic? The difference is in the input signal level. The system is optimized for -20dbfs which is what your cable box, APT, Streamer, Blueray and everything else in the world is set to. Amir was running it at 0dbfs, which I can see that if you are testing a simple device like a DAC and if my memory serves me correctly, -20dbfs is what he originally tested the RMC-1 at. Lonnie Here is the original pre firmware 1.9 measurement from ASR:  Note the chart tile includes: Emotiva RMC-1 AES/EBU In (Vol = 0 dB) Direct Mode The updated measurement is with the fix included in 1.9:  Note the chart title includes: Emotiva RCM-1 AES In (Version 1.9) Reference Stereo The 1.9 measurement is taken in Pure Direct both are outputting 3.9 volts. I suspect these RMC-1s were factory reset, the AES input received a 0 dBFS 1 kHz sine-wave and with the RMC-1 set to volume 0 it produced 3.9 Volts. This would be the normal MO for a device that produced 4 Volts at volume 0. How does differ from what you are doing in your tests? - Rich Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by donh50 on Sept 9, 2021 13:45:16 GMT -5
I have my old XMC-1 waiting to trade in. Hoping the final bugs get wringed out in the XMC-2/RMC-1 FW as that is more important to me than the base performance, which is good enough and comparable (assuming the latest measurements match previous RMC-1 data) to other AVR/AVPs. As for not having the coin, the reason I can wait is because I picked up a JBL SDP-75 (Trinnov Altitude 32) instead, and it has not had the user interface bugs being reported here as well as numerous other features. Most of the folk seem curious as to why the performance hit and how it can be resolved, less interested in attacking everyone who disagrees. I know a couple of people that own Trinnov and they have them professional installed in their teathers and do not care about any measurments. They just care that they can watch movies with their families and have a good time. That’s all Sure, ultimately that is anyone's goal, yes? But I like to see the measurements, too, and like to be able to set it up on my own so I can tweak and piddle later. I'd like to see top-notch performance from a top-tier product, but again the thing I am watching more are when the bugs get fixed and DLBC is implemented. Stand-alone DACs these days significantly exceed the XMC-2 or my SDP-75 in terms of SINAD (THD+N, whatever), but I remember when 0.1% THD was good and 0.01% was outstanding, so while I appreciate great specs (engineer, after all) most products are so good that features and operation are more important. As many others have said, the issue here is figuring out why the XMC-2 performed poorly relative to the RMC-1. Call it academic interest on my part. |
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator 
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,850
|
Post by LCSeminole on Sept 9, 2021 14:15:48 GMT -5
As many others have said, the issue here is figuring out why the XMC-2 performed poorly relative to the RMC-1. Call it academic interest on my part. In one of your previous posts in this thread, you asked about the differences in firmware, RMC-1(v1.9), compared to Amir's testing of the XMC-2(v2.3), you also mentioned that v2.3 has a known bass management boost bug. Could this have been the differences in the two different bench tests? |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 9, 2021 14:22:44 GMT -5
The "catch" is that, when it comes to digital products like DACs, and especially to complex digital products like processors... the "standard numbers" don't seem to convey the whole picture.
Both processors and DACs, even those with extremely good THD specs, do in fact often sound quite different. And, if the THD is so low that it cannot possibly be audible, then the reason for that audible difference must lie somewhere else. It's not magic, and it's not "intangibles", it's simply other stuff that isn't covered by that specific measurement. With DACs, we know that different DACs, with different filter characteristics, can sound quite different...
So, if the other specs are "really really good", then that is one good candidate for the differences we hear. (Although it is far from the only one.)
My point, in the context of your comment, is that there's little point to trying to improve certain numbers, if the only benefit is "to deliver impressive specifications"... There's not much point in reducing the THD on a DAC from 0.003% to 0.002%, if you cannot possibly hear a difference, merely to "deliver state-of-the-art specs"...
And that is doubly true if, in order to improve that number, you have to sacrifice something that is audible somewhere else. (Or merely because the engineer who designed it was so obsessed with that number that he simply ignored other things that may turn out to be more important.) To put it quite bluntly I personally will be quite satisfied if we " merely have the best sounding processor out there"....  "...distortion is likely inaudible." That is true. So the misgivings are psychological more than anything else. Pure sound-wise, not knowing any of the measurements but only having your ears to be the judge, what difference would a review/measurement make if it sounded good to you? I hear what you're saying and I would want to think the cost of the product is justified but then it kind of gets into something like, you have a product for which you paid list price and then you have a friend who tells you they got the same thing for 40% off. So does that change your opinion of your product? In the end, it is your experience with the unit that truly matters. BUT.... let's be real. Why are we going for a processor? Because it's supposed to perform better than an AVR right? Well an AVR can do these kind of measurements. Why are We spending that extra money for a processor if it's distortion level is at that of an AVR? Emotiva has got to hook people in to make them willing to listen to something. I think at this point, what's happened is there is a new generation of DAC products out there with unbelievably good measurements. Before, we didn't quite have these, but now we do. So this leaves a good amount of products in the "last-generation" which seems hopelessly outdated compared to the new crop of ultra-low distortion units. Back in the day, we were used to things like 60hz bump from the power supply, high noise floors. But nowadays it's just not the case. Right now there are DACs that are matching the distortion limits of the instruments and able to reproduce nearly 24 bits of resolution. I mean that's nuts right? But these dacs aren't super expensive anymore. It's a new generation and Emotiva has to keep up to stay in the game. I know they can do it. They just have to be willing. |
|
|
|
Post by louron on Sept 9, 2021 14:29:27 GMT -5
The difference is in the input signal level. The system is optimized for -20dbfs which is what your cable box, APT, Streamer, Blueray and everything else in the world is set to. Amir was running it at 0dbfs, which I can see that if you are testing a simple device like a DAC and if my memory serves me correctly, -20dbfs is what he originally tested the RMC-1 at. Lonnie Here is the original pre firmware 1.9 measurement from ASR: View AttachmentNote the chart tile includes: Emotiva RMC-1 AES/EBU In (Vol = 0 dB) Direct Mode The updated measurement is with the fix included in 1.9: View AttachmentNote the chart title includes: Emotiva RCM-1 AES In (Version 1.9) Reference Stereo The 1.9 measurement is taken in Pure Direct both are outputting 3.9 volts. I suspect these RMC-1s were factory reset, the AES input received a 0 dBFS 1 kHz sine-wave and with the RMC-1 set to volume 0 it produced 3.9 Volts. This would be the normal MO for a device that produced 4 Volts at volume 0. How does differ from what you are doing in your tests? - Rich Totally agree! Lonnie please explain. What is the difference between the first tests results you posted in which there was clearly a difference between the RMC-1 and the XMC-2 and the latest ones you released. I did note some differences in the units. One is in dBV and the initial one in dBrA! Would be so much better to get everything in the same base and it is basically what is requested. I personably just want to know if there is a difference between the processors in the exact same conditions as ASR tested them? It is hard to comprehend that the input level can be varied to such an extent. I personally can’t control the level output by my SACD player, my AppleTV or my universal player send to my XMC-2. I can control the volume of my XMC-2 to -20 dB or 0 dB. And for my use with my speakers efficiency and me amplifier gain, I often end up around -12dB specially with Dirac calibration. Please explain. Can we just keep it simple and transparent. We XMC-2 owners just want to know these measurements. It should be simple, actually it is simple unless we don’t like the numbers. Then it is what it is. It isn’t a question of audibility or if SINAD is an appropriate spec. Just a simple answer. Then if in similar conditions the RMC-1 SINAD is 100dB and the XMC-2 85dB do it is! If an owner like it as it is then great and for those who feel they were expecting (and led to believe) a measurement similar to the RMC-1 then Emotiva could offer some type of special upgrade package if they feel like taking that chance. Just transparency and a path forward if there is such a difference and if it matters for a customer! |
|
Lonnie
Emo Staff
admin
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
Posts: 6,999
|
Post by Lonnie on Sept 9, 2021 14:31:32 GMT -5
As many others have said, the issue here is figuring out why the XMC-2 performed poorly relative to the RMC-1. Call it academic interest on my part. In one of your previous posts in this thread, you asked about the differences in firmware, RMC-1(v1.9), compared to Amir's testing of the XMC-2(v2.3), you also mentioned that v2.3 has a known bass management boost bug. Could this have been the differences in the two different bench tests? I ran both the XMC-2 and RMC-1 through this morning and posted a full scale graph of each. In the QA test as well as the graphs I posted, they measure identically. I can't answer to why they measured differently when Amir tested them, I suspect it comes down to setup configuration and test procedure. Amir has stated that he does not use canned test. Every test he does is set up differently so he can evaluate it. Paraphrased from his interview. Anyway, we do have canned test, it is an 88 page AP test that every unit goes through so I can say with absolute certainty that nothing has changed on our side. Lonnie |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 9, 2021 14:35:50 GMT -5
EVERYBODY has an agenda....
As a manufacturer it is our "agenda" to sell a lot of products... And a good way to do that is to have a lot of happy customers... (And, to a lesser degree, simply having a bunch of favorable reviews does help.)
The agenda of a review site is to get people to come to their site and read their content. They can do this by providing reviews that their customers view or perceive as useful. And they can do that by providing measurements or other information that their customers find useful... Or by providing opinions that their customers find useful (for example if you find that your tastes agree with those of your favorite movie critic or art critic)...
Or by being informative to their customers in other ways... Or simply by posting controversial content that encourages people to visit their site to participate in debates or discussions...
One excellent strategy is to offer your customers something that they cannot get anywhere else. With hardware products this often takes the form of "exclusive technology" or "the latest and greatest new features"... (But offering measurements in some unique format that nobody else uses works pretty well too... )
I think Emotiva shouldn’t defend anything. If you don’t like the numbers posted by an agenda driven website, don’t buy the product. If you care about how it sounds buy it and have a listen. If you don’t like how it sounds, return it. Simple as that Not sure if Amir is really "agenda driven" but otherwise I agree with you. If you like a product then what difference do the numbers make? How many of us know all the specs for our cars? The likely answer would be not many, and to add to that, "I don't need to know the specs, I just like driving it." Or, "It does the job." So if that is the case with your car, then what is the deal with your audio gear? What if you have a car whose top speed is supposed to be 140 mph but some magazine or web site says it could only do 135 mph? Do you even drive that fast anyway?  |
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,850
|
Post by LCSeminole on Sept 9, 2021 14:51:48 GMT -5
In one of your previous posts in this thread, you asked about the differences in firmware, RMC-1(v1.9), compared to Amir's testing of the XMC-2(v2.3), you also mentioned that v2.3 has a known bass management boost bug. Could this have been the differences in the two different bench tests? I ran both the XMC-2 and RMC-1 through this morning and posted a full scale graph of each. In the QA test as well as the graphs I posted, they measure identically. I can't answer to why they measured differently when Amir tested them, I suspect it comes down to setup configuration and test procedure. Amir has stated that he does not use canned test. Every test he does is set up differently so he can evaluate it. Paraphrased from his interview. Anyway, we do have canned test, it is an 88 page AP test that every unit goes through so I can say with absolute certainty that nothing has changed on our side. Lonnie I definitely get your bench testing and understood it. I was actually referring to the two different bench tests that Amir had performed, the RMC-1 with firmware v1.9 about 2 years ago and this recent XMC-2 with firmware v2.3. Could the different firmwares be the difference in Amir's bench test?....especially since there is a known bass management bug in v2.3. |
|
Lonnie
Emo Staff
admin
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
Posts: 6,999
|
Post by Lonnie on Sept 9, 2021 15:03:17 GMT -5
I ran both the XMC-2 and RMC-1 through this morning and posted a full scale graph of each. In the QA test as well as the graphs I posted, they measure identically. I can't answer to why they measured differently when Amir tested them, I suspect it comes down to setup configuration and test procedure. Amir has stated that he does not use canned test. Every test he does is set up differently so he can evaluate it. Paraphrased from his interview. Anyway, we do have canned test, it is an 88 page AP test that every unit goes through so I can say with absolute certainty that nothing has changed on our side. Lonnie I definitely get your bench testing and understood it. I was actually referring to the two different bench tests that Amir had performed, the RMC-1 with firmware v1.9 about 2 years ago and this recent XMC-2 with firmware v2.3. Could the different firmwares be the difference in Amir's bench test?....especially since there is a known bass management bug in v2.3. I see what you are asking now. Prior to 1.9 the Dolby up mixer was turned on all the time which is what causes the harmonics. The 1.9 code set only applies the up mixer under specific conditions. Now the summed bass mix levels that you are referring to now have to do with some work we are doing to prep for Dolby 1.8 integration. We have identified the various level offsets and addressed this, but that is different from the harmonics. Lonnie |
|
richb
Sensei
Oppo Beta Group - Audioholics Reviewer
Posts: 890
|
Post by richb on Sept 9, 2021 15:22:29 GMT -5
EVERYBODY has an agenda.... As a manufacturer it is our "agenda" to sell a lot of products... And a good way to do that is to have a lot of happy customers... (And, to a lesser degree, simply having a bunch of favorable reviews does help.) The agenda of a review site is to get people to come to their site and read their content. They can do this by providing reviews that their customers view or perceive as useful. And they can do that by providing measurements or other information that their customers find useful... Or by providing opinions that their customers find useful (for example if you find that your tastes agree with those of your favorite movie critic or art critic)...
Or by being informative to their customers in other ways... Or simply by posting controversial content that encourages people to visit their site to participate in debates or discussions... One excellent strategy is to offer your customers something that they cannot get anywhere else. With hardware products this often takes the form of "exclusive technology" or "the latest and greatest new features"... (But offering measurements in some unique format that nobody else uses works pretty well too... )
Not sure if Amir is really "agenda driven" but otherwise I agree with you. If you like a product then what difference do the numbers make? How many of us know all the specs for our cars? The likely answer would be not many, and to add to that, "I don't need to know the specs, I just like driving it." Or, "It does the job." So if that is the case with your car, then what is the deal with your audio gear? What if you have a car whose top speed is supposed to be 140 mph but some magazine or web site says it could only do 135 mph? Do you even drive that fast anyway? Focusing on "Agenda" approaches attacking the messenger that is is not often well received.  My take on ASR's mission is to measure audio products performance in a standard manner and selected SINAD to measure against the potential dynamic range of digital sources. 0 SPL is defined as the lower limit of human hearing (actually, it can dip below 0 SPL). A strict view is that any product that achieves 120 dB SINAD that is guaranteed to be completely transparent. 96 dB is completely transparent for 16-bit (CD) sources. You'd be hard pressed to actually find a source with 16 bit of dynamic range but conceptually, the argument is logical. ASR has an expectation that expensive processors (multiple thousands) should be able to approach the performance of a relatively inexpensive desktop DACs (sub $1000). This does not account for the complexity of AVR/AVPs but the AVR/AVP ratings are presented in their own class. IMO, a high-channel count processor needs have some headroom because DSP processing and bass, this could be up to 20 dB but much less typically which is an argument for good baseline performance. It is fair to say that this single metric is not really telling the story of sound quality of complex processors. It is entirely possible that the implementation of DACs, DSPs, and filters may dwarf this one metric. The answer to unflattering measurements is more measurements, perhaps, dare I say, published under the vendors' product specifications. - Rich |
|
Chris
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 424
|
Post by Chris on Sept 9, 2021 15:28:57 GMT -5
Hi Lonnie,
As a very long time Emotiva customer, I appreciate all the work you and your team put into providing some of the best HiFi gear at very competive prices. As a devoted vinylphile, I am also grateful for the Balanced XLR input and Reference Stereo mode on my XMC-2.
I think it would be cool and help others gain confidence if you or your team could take a look at a few of ASR's processor/AVR review tests and try to recreate them with the XMC-2. I know this would be a lot of work. But, you could then send the exact XMC-2 to Amir @asr and he could perform the exact tests. If you both achieve the same results, then you would be doing the Scientific method by independently replicating the results. The downside would be if the results continue to diverge.
I do appreciate you posting the XMC-2 PDF AP plot which to my eyes look exceptionally good.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by louron on Sept 9, 2021 15:32:49 GMT -5
In one of your previous posts in this thread, you asked about the differences in firmware, RMC-1(v1.9), compared to Amir's testing of the XMC-2(v2.3), you also mentioned that v2.3 has a known bass management boost bug. Could this have been the differences in the two different bench tests? I ran both the XMC-2 and RMC-1 through this morning and posted a full scale graph of each. In the QA test as well as the graphs I posted, they measure identically. I can't answer to why they measured differently when Amir tested them, I suspect it comes down to setup configuration and test procedure. Amir has stated that he does not use canned test. Every test he does is set up differently so he can evaluate it. Paraphrased from his interview. Anyway, we do have canned test, it is an 88 page AP test that every unit goes through so I can say with absolute certainty that nothing has changed on our side. Lonnie Hi Lonnie, Then can you explain the first tests results you posted yesterday! And when you have time take a look at a post I did before and please help uneducated people like me understand. Soon be simple for an expert like you. We need simple answers and similar tests and units. Best Regards. |
|
|
|
Post by louron on Sept 9, 2021 15:39:34 GMT -5
Hi Lonnie, As a very long time Emotiva customer, I appreciate all the work you and your team put into providing some of the best HiFi gear at very competive prices. As a devoted vinylphile, I am also grateful for the Balanced XLR input and Reference Stereo mode on my XMC-2. I think it would be cool and help others gain confidence if you or your team could take a look at a few of ASR's processor/AVR review tests and try to recreate them with the XMC-2. I know this would be a lot of work. But, you could then send the exact XMC-2 to Amir @asr and he could perform the exact tests. If you both achieve the same results, then you would doing the Scientific method by independently replcating the results. The downside would be if the results continue to diverge. I do appreciate you posting the XMC-2 PDF AP plot which to my eyes look exceptionally good. Thanks. Agree with you. I am an Emotiva customer too and let’s face it most of us visit all these websites. you can easily see that from the posts. Let’s get to the bottom of this. Not shove it under the carpet. I believe in the good faith of both ASR and Emotiva. I don’t buy the agenda stuff. I don’t think ASR has a business interest. No conflict of interest. Let’s compare similar tests with parameters and units the same. Simple! This isn’t going away so better get it done. Do we as owners need to send another XMC-2 to ASR! Or can we simply come together and get to the bottom of this to everybody satisfaction! |
|
