Discussion of EMO-Q - Unusable as is

[ratmice]

I guess the question becomes, why does every other room correction (MCACC, Audyssey, YPAO) get it right? And why was this, rather widespread anomaly, not found during testing? Does it potentially have something to do with the update process?

[moodyman]

Some of us, me included, should be getting UMC's next week with the FW fix already installed. I'm anxious to see if there is still an EMO-Q problem...

[ntrain42]

Feb 10, 2010 1:39:26 GMT -5 ripcordaff said:

Feb 10, 2010 1:13:06 GMT -5 ntrain42 said:

I do. ;D And if you can read a simple 30 band LED meter, then you can tune a system. Doesn't take more than 5 minutes of your time to get familiar with the device.

Quite simply, your not going to get a high quality accurate mic on a home system processor. The EMO-Q function will not get you a very accurate calibration, nor will any other home EQ function like Audessy etc.......the quality just isnt there. Use a meter and the manual presets to get the best sound out of your system.

Well some of us don't have access to that equipment nor is the value of device sustained when you need pro level equipment TO MAKE IT SOUND GOOD. That is unacceptable. Onkyo, for instance, ships a little mic that probably costs them a buck. And you know what? It WORKS with Audyssey. Audyssey nailed my distance and crosses every time, and I have had to dial it in several different times due to changes in living situations and speakers. Yes, I am sure a pro level mic and calibration equipment would help EmoQ do its job, but when you are selling this level of prepro, even if it is giant killer we all expect it to be, Emo can't expect professional installers\equipment to be available for initial set up.

I love Emotiva and the gear they make as much as the next guy (my UMC 1 is on the way in fact), but come on. Are you really suggesting that it is the OP's fault for not having a RTA and therefore he is doomed to never to set up the UMC correctly? No. It is a software bug with EmoQ. We all bleed blue here, but seriously--Emo needs to fix this, not the OP..

Honestly my take on it, is that if anyone is willing to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars on AV gear, then why not spend a few hundred bucks to get a device to tune it properly to the room to make it sound its best? Especially those people who constantly swap out gear and upgrade on a regular basis. I am aware not everyone wants to spend that kind of money on a stand alone RTA, but there are less expensive options like picking up a quality mic(for well under $100)and RTA software to convert your laptop into a relatively accurate part time RTA as well.

In the past I have set up HT and 2 channel systems with minimal money invested on tight budgets that sounded far better than other setups with exponentially more money invested with top flight gear that didnt have the time put in to make it sound its best.

So Im not suggesting the OP is doomed, but he sounds picky and obviously has some money invested in his gear so if he wants the best in seat frequency response he should use some type of dedicated RTA or software program that will get him dialed in much better than what EMO-Q is capable of. EMO-Q has the tools with an excellent Xover feature and mulitband independant channel EQ, but to get the most out of it, it should be manually set up and tuned. Forget the auto function. Heck, he should at least set the hi/lo xover function, speaker distance and level manually on his own with the use of a basic SPL meter(Emo even recommends that in the manual)which he can pick up for less than $50-100 online. The EQ function should be done with some type of RTA or RTA software though if he really wants to get the most out of his setup. Depending on room characteristics and speaker type he is going to have all sorts of peaks and dips in the frequency range and needs something relatively accurate to tell him where the peaks and valleys are so they can be corrected properly.

[ntrain42]

Feb 10, 2010 9:18:08 GMT -5 ratmice said:

I guess the question becomes, why does every other room correction (MCACC, Audyssey, YPAO) get it right? And why was this, rather widespread anomaly, not found during testing? Does it potentially have something to do with the update process?

"RIght" is subjective at best, none of those other room correction systems come close to a good manual setup. Some just get the "ballpark" closer than others at best.

[ripcordaff]

Feb 10, 2010 10:26:49 GMT -5 ntrain42 said:

Feb 10, 2010 1:39:26 GMT -5 ripcordaff said:

Well some of us don't have access to that equipment nor is the value of device sustained when you need pro level equipment TO MAKE IT SOUND GOOD. That is unacceptable. Onkyo, for instance, ships a little mic that probably costs them a buck. And you know what? It WORKS with Audyssey. Audyssey nailed my distance and crosses every time, and I have had to dial it in several different times due to changes in living situations and speakers. Yes, I am sure a pro level mic and calibration equipment would help EmoQ do its job, but when you are selling this level of prepro, even if it is giant killer we all expect it to be, Emo can't expect professional installers\equipment to be available for initial set up.

I love Emotiva and the gear they make as much as the next guy (my UMC 1 is on the way in fact), but come on. Are you really suggesting that it is the OP's fault for not having a RTA and therefore he is doomed to never to set up the UMC correctly? No. It is a software bug with EmoQ. We all bleed blue here, but seriously--Emo needs to fix this, not the OP..

Honestly my take on it, is that if anyone is willing to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars on AV gear, then why not spend a few hundred bucks to get a device to tune it properly to the room to make it sound its best? Especially those people who constantly swap out gear and upgrade on a regular basis. I am aware not everyone wants to spend that kind of money on a stand alone RTA, but there are less expensive options like picking up a quality mic(for well under $100)and RTA software to convert your laptop into a relatively accurate part time RTA as well.

In the past I have set up HT and 2 channel systems with minimal money invested on tight budgets that sounded far better than other setups with exponentially more money invested with top flight gear that didnt have the time put in to make it sound its best.

So Im not suggesting the OP is doomed, but he sounds picky and obviously has some money invested in his gear so if he wants the best in seat frequency response he should use some type of dedicated RTA or software program that will get him dialed in much better than what EMO-Q is capable of. EMO-Q has the tools with an excellent Xover feature and mulitband independant channel EQ, but to get the most out of it, it should be manually set up and tuned. Forget the auto function. Heck, he should at least set the hi/lo xover function, speaker distance and level manually on his own with the use of a basic SPL meter(Emo even recommends that in the manual)which he can pick up for less than $50-100 online. The EQ function should be done with some type of RTA or RTA software though if he really wants to get the most out of his setup. Depending on room characteristics and speaker type he is going to have all sorts of peaks and dips in the frequency range and needs something relatively accurate to tell him where the peaks and valleys are so they can be corrected properly.

I am sorry but I disagree and I think that you are granting Emotiva a little too much leeway in this instance. Emotiva's market is consumers that demand hi quality audio products at a reasonable price, this, of course, means that we are slight more informed than the average consumer that walks into the nearest boutique and lets the salesperson pick out his system for them. Consequently, I would wager that many of us already know what a system should or should not sound like, but I wouldn't classify the OP as "picky" simply because he states that it is incorrect for one of his rear speakers is set to 250hz and the other at 20hz.

And I agree with you that setting Xovers and levels is not that hard and could be done by most anyone. Furthermore, setting the EQ isnt that technically difficult for those that have appropriate equipment and the time to do it. However, Emo is selling a product that purports to do those things automatically. In fact (though this is news to me) they INCLUDE a microphone that, inherently, they suggest you using. If the system does not work with the supplied equipment (and you really can't claim that it does just be scanning this thread and nothing the widespread problems that people are having) then it does NOT work. Again, yes, it would work BETTER with an RTA, but Emo cannot expect their customers to use an RTA just to avoid 20hz\250hz values. That, at least to me, is evidence enough that the software is faulty. Others have said it and I will say it, Audyssey does just fine (and others perhaps, but my experience is with Audyssey).

Just because the OP, and likely most of us, spend lots of money on audio equipment does not mean we are entitled to LESS performance or MORE headaches when the products are delivered. We spend lots of money with Emo because of the great value it represents, but that loyalty is premised on the assumption that I think most of us have that the products perform beyond expectations. I can only speak for myself when I say that Emo-Q seems to be performing far below expectations and is nudging the "unacceptable" territory.

But hey, if Emo can sell enough of the UMC-1s to folks like yourself that are willing to invest the time\money into an RTA rig to get the most out of their products, more power to them. I am just saying that if it doesn't work as advertised then I won't be one of them.

[jmilton]

Feb 10, 2010 10:37:54 GMT -5 ripcordaff said:

Feb 10, 2010 10:26:49 GMT -5 ntrain42 said:

Honestly my take on it, is that if anyone is willing to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars on AV gear, then why not spend a few hundred bucks to get a device to tune it properly to the room to make it sound its best? Especially those people who constantly swap out gear and upgrade on a regular basis. I am aware not everyone wants to spend that kind of money on a stand alone RTA, but there are less expensive options like picking up a quality mic(for well under $100)and RTA software to convert your laptop into a relatively accurate part time RTA as well.

In the past I have set up HT and 2 channel systems with minimal money invested on tight budgets that sounded far better than other setups with exponentially more money invested with top flight gear that didnt have the time put in to make it sound its best.

So Im not suggesting the OP is doomed, but he sounds picky and obviously has some money invested in his gear so if he wants the best in seat frequency response he should use some type of dedicated RTA or software program that will get him dialed in much better than what EMO-Q is capable of. EMO-Q has the tools with an excellent Xover feature and mulitband independant channel EQ, but to get the most out of it, it should be manually set up and tuned. Forget the auto function. Heck, he should at least set the hi/lo xover function, speaker distance and level manually on his own with the use of a basic SPL meter(Emo even recommends that in the manual)which he can pick up for less than $50-100 online. The EQ function should be done with some type of RTA or RTA software though if he really wants to get the most out of his setup. Depending on room characteristics and speaker type he is going to have all sorts of peaks and dips in the frequency range and needs something relatively accurate to tell him where the peaks and valleys are so they can be corrected properly.

I am sorry but I disagree and I think that you are granting Emotiva a little too much leeway in this instance. Emotiva's market is consumers that demand hi quality audio products at a reasonable price, this, of course, means that we are slight more informed than the average consumer that walks into the nearest boutique and lets the salesperson pick out his system for them. Consequently, I would wager that many of us already know what a system should or should not sound like, but I wouldn't classify the OP as "picky" simply because he states that it is incorrect for one of his rear speakers is set to 250hz and the other at 20hz.

And I agree with you that setting Xovers and levels is not that hard and could be done by most anyone. Furthermore, setting the EQ isnt that technically difficult for those that have appropriate equipment and the time to do it. However, Emo is selling a product that purports to do those things automatically. In fact (though this is news to me) they INCLUDE a microphone that, inherently, they suggest you using. If the system does not work with the supplied equipment (and you really can't claim that it does just be scanning this thread and nothing the widespread problems that people are having) then it does NOT work. Again, yes, it would work BETTER with an RTA, but Emo cannot expect their customers to use an RTA just to avoid 20hz\250hz values. That, at least to me, is evidence enough that the software is faulty. Others have said it and I will say it, Audyssey does just fine (and others perhaps, but my experience is with Audyssey).

Just because the OP, and likely most of us, spend lots of money on audio equipment does not mean we are entitled to LESS performance or MORE headaches when the products are delivered. We spend lots of money with Emo because of the great value it represents, but that loyalty is premised on the assumption that I think most of us have that the products perform beyond expectations. I can only speak for myself when I say that Emo-Q seems to be performing far below expectations and is nudging the "unacceptable" territory.

But hey, if Emo can sell enough of the UMC-1s to folks like yourself that are willing to invest the time\money into an RTA rig to get the most out of their products, more power to them. I am just saying that if it doesn't work as advertised then I won't be one of them.

+1. By in large, EmoQ does not work as designed. Something is still amiss, though improved with the SW upgrade.

[ntrain42]

Feb 10, 2010 10:37:54 GMT -5 ripcordaff said:

Feb 10, 2010 10:26:49 GMT -5 ntrain42 said:

Honestly my take on it, is that if anyone is willing to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars on AV gear, then why not spend a few hundred bucks to get a device to tune it properly to the room to make it sound its best? Especially those people who constantly swap out gear and upgrade on a regular basis. I am aware not everyone wants to spend that kind of money on a stand alone RTA, but there are less expensive options like picking up a quality mic(for well under $100)and RTA software to convert your laptop into a relatively accurate part time RTA as well.

In the past I have set up HT and 2 channel systems with minimal money invested on tight budgets that sounded far better than other setups with exponentially more money invested with top flight gear that didnt have the time put in to make it sound its best.

So Im not suggesting the OP is doomed, but he sounds picky and obviously has some money invested in his gear so if he wants the best in seat frequency response he should use some type of dedicated RTA or software program that will get him dialed in much better than what EMO-Q is capable of. EMO-Q has the tools with an excellent Xover feature and mulitband independant channel EQ, but to get the most out of it, it should be manually set up and tuned. Forget the auto function. Heck, he should at least set the hi/lo xover function, speaker distance and level manually on his own with the use of a basic SPL meter(Emo even recommends that in the manual)which he can pick up for less than $50-100 online. The EQ function should be done with some type of RTA or RTA software though if he really wants to get the most out of his setup. Depending on room characteristics and speaker type he is going to have all sorts of peaks and dips in the frequency range and needs something relatively accurate to tell him where the peaks and valleys are so they can be corrected properly.

I am sorry but I disagree and I think that you are granting Emotiva a little too much leeway in this instance. Emotiva's market is consumers that demand hi quality audio products at a reasonable price, this, of course, means that we are slight more informed than the average consumer that walks into the nearest boutique and lets the salesperson pick out his system for them. Consequently, I would wager that many of us already know what a system should or should not sound like, but I wouldn't classify the OP as "picky" simply because he states that it is incorrect for one of his rear speakers is set to 250hz and the other at 20hz.

And I agree with you that setting Xovers and levels is not that hard and could be done by most anyone. Furthermore, setting the EQ isnt that technically difficult for those that have appropriate equipment and the time to do it. However, Emo is selling a product that purports to do those things automatically. In fact (though this is news to me) they INCLUDE a microphone that, inherently, they suggest you using. If the system does not work with the supplied equipment (and you really can't claim that it does just be scanning this thread and nothing the widespread problems that people are having) then it does NOT work. Again, yes, it would work BETTER with an RTA, but Emo cannot expect their customers to use an RTA just to avoid 20hz\250hz values. That, at least to me, is evidence enough that the software is faulty. Others have said it and I will say it, Audyssey does just fine (and others perhaps, but my experience is with Audyssey).

Just because the OP, and likely most of us, spend lots of money on audio equipment does not mean we are entitled to LESS performance or MORE headaches when the products are delivered. We spend lots of money with Emo because of the great value it represents, but that loyalty is premised on the assumption that I think most of us have that the products perform beyond expectations. I can only speak for myself when I say that Emo-Q seems to be performing far below expectations and is nudging the "unacceptable" territory.

But hey, if Emo can sell enough of the UMC-1s to folks like yourself that are willing to invest the time\money into an RTA rig to get the most out of their products, more power to them. I am just saying that if it doesn't work as advertised then I won't be one of them.

Trust me, Im not granting EMO any leeway. And I have stated the autotune setup is kind of worthless. But for $699 your getting a hell of alot of flexibility in their manual adjustments. 12/24db xovers adjustable in 5hz steps? .1 step speaker distant(time alignmnet)values? Independant per channel 14 band(i think its 14)parametric EQ with what? 9/12 cut gain steps? 3 user presets? Decodes MA and True HD, 1080P switcher. This is the bread and butter of this hardware piece. For how much? 7 Benjamins? Good luck finding this feature set for even twice the price. A good comparison is the Onkyo PR-SC 886, at about twice the cost with a few gains and a few subtractions. You could basically buy the UMC-1, a good sound mic and RTA software and you will have still saved yourself quite a few hundred bucks over the 886. See what Im saying? Yep Im sure there are software bugs that need to be worked out to get the auto tune function to function better, but for the best setup possible alot of the critical setup steps should be done manually, even when they get EMO-Q's auto tune to function better with a firmware upgrade.

[ratmice]

Feb 10, 2010 10:28:35 GMT -5 ntrain42 said:

Feb 10, 2010 9:18:08 GMT -5 ratmice said:

I guess the question becomes, why does every other room correction (MCACC, Audyssey, YPAO) get it right? And why was this, rather widespread anomaly, not found during testing? Does it potentially have something to do with the update process?

"RIght" is subjective at best, none of those other room correction systems come close to a good manual setup. Some just get the "ballpark" closer than others at best.

OK, what I mean by right is speaker trim, x-over, distance - the basic, easy stuff.

We get it YOU don't trust anything but your RTA and expensive mic. However, there really are thousands of people that do like what the auto calibration systems do in their setups. I happen t be one of them - MCACC does a great job with my room compared to no EQ. YMMV.

[ntrain42]

Feb 10, 2010 10:52:31 GMT -5 ratmice said:

Feb 10, 2010 10:28:35 GMT -5 ntrain42 said:

"RIght" is subjective at best, none of those other room correction systems come close to a good manual setup. Some just get the "ballpark" closer than others at best.

OK, what I mean by right is speaker trim, x-over, distance - the basic, easy stuff.

We get it YOU don't trust anything but your RTA and expensive mic. However, there really are thousands of people that do like what the auto calibration systems do in their setups. I happen t be one of them - MCACC does a great job with my room compared to no EQ. YMMV.

It might get the "easy" stuff right, but whats the point of getting the easy stuff right, it probably would take you just as long to manually punch in the specs needed.

When it comes to the "hard" EQing part, your right I dont trust MCACC,Audessy,EMO-Q etc. because experience has shown all those systems to be poor at smoothing out the in room EQ at best. Many times making certain frequencies worse off. Again you dont need expensive hardware. Grab the shareware RTA software from HTshack and a $50 Behringer ECM8000 spectrum mic. and your good to go.

[ripcordaff]

Well we all have different perceived values and expectations. ntrain and I can just agree to disagree. My personal opinion is don't include a software functionality (and included mic) if the software doesn't work, but that is just me. The better solution might have been in the manual to state "Note: The Emo-Q EQ functionality will not function correctly without additional equipment and expertise. Please do NOT use the supplied microphone to set your room correction values. It is intended as home theater decoration and will significantly contribute to the beauty of any home!"

We really just need to wait and see what Emo says. I have tremendous respect for Lonnie and all he and the others have done with this, but if he says this is working as designed.... well.......

[moodyman]

Feb 10, 2010 10:26:49 GMT -5 ntrain42 said:

I am aware not everyone wants to spend that kind of money on a stand alone RTA, but there are less expensive options like picking up a quality mic(for well under $100)and RTA software to convert your laptop into a relatively accurate part time RTA as well.

Actually this sounds like a good idea...

I see REW is used a lot on the AVS forum..

www.hometheatershack.com/roomeq/

Anybody here use it??

[ntrain42]

Feb 10, 2010 11:09:14 GMT -5 ripcordaff said:

Well we all have different perceived values and expectations. ntrain and I can just agree to disagree. My personal opinion is don't include a software functionality (and included mic) if the software doesn't work, but that is just me. The better solution might have been in the manual to state "Note: The Emo-Q EQ functionality will not function correctly without additional equipment and expertise. Please do NOT use the supplied microphone to set your room correction values. It is intended as home theater decoration and will significantly contribute to the beauty of any home!"

We really just need to wait and see what Emo says. I have tremendous respect for Lonnie and all he and the others have done with this, but if he says this is working as designed.... well.......

Honestly I agree that there are most likely bugs in the EMO-Q auto tune software which can be improved via an update. I also feel that alot of these autotune software functions shouldn't be included as well with all the brands. I mean come on, what can you honestly expect out of a 50 cent mic? Use common sense here. Id rather see an "optional" accessory package consisting of a much higher quality calibrated mic with a good dedicated software/visual feedback plug in that can potentially be much more accurate for the end user for those who feel the need to purchase it.

[ripcordaff]

Feb 10, 2010 11:24:22 GMT -5 ntrain42 said:

Feb 10, 2010 11:09:14 GMT -5 ripcordaff said:

Well we all have different perceived values and expectations. ntrain and I can just agree to disagree. My personal opinion is don't include a software functionality (and included mic) if the software doesn't work, but that is just me. The better solution might have been in the manual to state "Note: The Emo-Q EQ functionality will not function correctly without additional equipment and expertise. Please do NOT use the supplied microphone to set your room correction values. It is intended as home theater decoration and will significantly contribute to the beauty of any home!"

We really just need to wait and see what Emo says. I have tremendous respect for Lonnie and all he and the others have done with this, but if he says this is working as designed.... well.......

Honestly I agree that there are most likely bugs in the EMO-Q auto tune software which can be improved via an update. I also feel that alot of these autotune software functions shouldn't be included as well with all the brands. I mean come on, what can you honestly expect out of a 50 cent mic? Use common sense here. Id rather see an "optional" accessory package consisting of a much higher quality calibrated mic with a good dedicated software/visual feedback plug in that can potentially be much more accurate for the end user for those who feel the need to purchase it.

I agree with that too. I think that the capability of the software is limited somewhat by the equipment. And I am sure that your RTA system does provide better measurements for the algorithms to work with (next time you're in Iowa, swing by and calibrate my system! ;D). My only point is that if it doesn't work, don't act like it does (and it Emo's defense, they have not. They have not chimed in telling us we're crazy, so it all might be bug and we are getting all a flutter for nothing).

[ripcordaff]

Feb 10, 2010 11:12:10 GMT -5 moodyman said:

Feb 10, 2010 10:26:49 GMT -5 ntrain42 said:

I am aware not everyone wants to spend that kind of money on a stand alone RTA, but there are less expensive options like picking up a quality mic(for well under $100)and RTA software to convert your laptop into a relatively accurate part time RTA as well.

Actually this sounds like a good idea...

I see REW is used a lot on the AVS forum..

www.hometheatershack.com/roomeq/

Anybody here use it??

I have used REW, it works well. Read the directions\help file as its not completely intuitive, but it does what it is intended to do.

[DYohn]

Feb 10, 2010 11:12:10 GMT -5 moodyman said:

Feb 10, 2010 10:26:49 GMT -5 ntrain42 said:

I am aware not everyone wants to spend that kind of money on a stand alone RTA, but there are less expensive options like picking up a quality mic(for well under $100)and RTA software to convert your laptop into a relatively accurate part time RTA as well.

Actually this sounds like a good idea...

I see REW is used a lot on the AVS forum..

www.hometheatershack.com/roomeq/

Anybody here use it??

REW is quite good and we offer lots of support for it on the Shack. Don't hesitate to post your questions about using it and one of the authors is the person likely to answer you.

BTW, I started a UMC-1 users thread on the Shack if any of you want to jump over there and post your experience.

FYI please read the Home Theater Shack forum rules if you do decide to post there as the zero-tolerance policy toward language and arguing is strictly enforced.

[scheiderichdmd]

I just updated my UMC last night, and ran emo-Q for the first time. The distances were off a little, and changed each time I ran it, but the relative distances from one speaker to the next are good. Then I ran the eq/x-over sweep, and mine turned out really well. The crossovers were dead on. It set my mains at 20hz (Strata minis being run full range with the built in sub tied into the main binding posts), my center at 70hz (onix ref 100), and my surrounds at 120 and 110 (ELT 525's). I'm currently not running a separate sub, so I can't comment on that. As far as the eq, I'm impressed. My center had always sounded hot to me, and the eq smoothed it out a lot, and it blends SO much better with my mains now. It also picked up that my mains are out of phase (Audessy picked up the same thing, I guess they are internally wired that way?).

Anyway, I'm very pleased with the results, and the numbers all pass the smell test. Maybe I'm just lucky, or maybe your update didn't work properly. I LOVE the sound of my UMC, and from the limited testing I did after the firmware update, mine seems to have the bugs pretty much worked out.

By the way, the update went flawlessly using a laptop with Vista 32 bit. Hope that helps.

Mark

[darien87]

I ran Emo-Q 3 times last night after performing the update and I got some funky values as well.

I didn't verify the speaker distance settings, maybe I'll do that tonight. But it did give me crazy crossover settings. I think it gave me 250Hz for the left front, but 20Hz for the right front. My fronts are towers that play down to about 35Hz. It gave me a crossover of 100Hz for my center, which goes down to about 60Hz. It gave me crossover of 100Hz for my rears that go to 80Hz. Not a huge deal I guess, so I just manually adjusted all of my crossovers to what I think they should be, (40Hz fronts, 65Hz center, 80Hz rears).

It also told me that my left front and subs were reverse phase. Weird.

The really strange thing though is the sub volume. I have a 10" sub behind the couch/seating position and I have a 12" sub across the room on the right side. After running Emo-Q, it set the sub level to +10, yet when I try to manually calibrate the speakers using the UMC-1's test tones, the subs are about 10db down from the rest of the speakers. I can get all of the other speakers level matched, but even at +10 the subs are 10db too quiet, according to my Radio Shack SPL meter. Yet when I watch a movie, the subs sound a tad too "hot".

I just called Emo-Tech and was told to try running Emo-Q with only one sub connected. So I think I will try it again tonight with just the 12" sub hooked up. We'll see what happens.

[Nemesis.ie]

I wonder did some folks get bad mics or perhaps one of the update files with the new mic calibration not go in? Maybe a poll with "EMO-Q works well/is screwed up" would be useful?

[rooster]

Feb 10, 2010 11:24:22 GMT -5 ntrain42 said:

Feb 10, 2010 11:09:14 GMT -5 ripcordaff said:

Well we all have different perceived values and expectations. ntrain and I can just agree to disagree. My personal opinion is don't include a software functionality (and included mic) if the software doesn't work, but that is just me. The better solution might have been in the manual to state "Note: The Emo-Q EQ functionality will not function correctly without additional equipment and expertise. Please do NOT use the supplied microphone to set your room correction values. It is intended as home theater decoration and will significantly contribute to the beauty of any home!"

We really just need to wait and see what Emo says. I have tremendous respect for Lonnie and all he and the others have done with this, but if he says this is working as designed.... well.......

Honestly I agree that there are most likely bugs in the EMO-Q auto tune software which can be improved via an update. I also feel that alot of these autotune software functions shouldn't be included as well with all the brands. I mean come on, what can you honestly expect out of a 50 cent mic? Use common sense here. Id rather see an "optional" accessory package consisting of a much higher quality calibrated mic with a good dedicated software/visual feedback plug in that can potentially be much more accurate for the end user for those who feel the need to purchase it.

good point. even with audyssey, you can't achieve a truly flat curve without the "pro" package, which includes an upgraded mic and software. of course you also have the option of paying for it to be professionally calibrated.

[viperxbr]

A little video I found on correct mic placements for Audessy. I assume the same could be used for Emo-Q. Take note of how far from the back of the couch to place the mic. May help. Don't know. Thought I'd pass it on. "Garbage in=Garbage out" as the saying goes.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=okyNlhJ3Hvo