Emotiva RMC-1 AV Processor Review

[Costas EAR]

Sorry for the novel... been drinking...

Drinking is a good man's habbit, all my friends enjoy beer and late at night a single malt!

I also agree with your post, and i suppose we are all in this together, even with different approaches, and of course we are all interested to find out details and measurements of the JBL processors, we all keep our breath for Harman!

It's a fact that old upmixers were awful, and even some av possessors sold these days don't have a decent upmixing algorithm or any kind of adjustments of each algorithm.

DTS neo 6 upmixing algorithm for example, has 2 new revisions in 2019, one for music and one for movies, and i found that the music one was really excellent, even without any kind of adjustments.

I've read a paper from some Scandinavian engineers (if i remember well) about upmixing, who have established a new algorithm, preserving the total energy of the 2 channel raw sound, and including many complex psychoacoustic aspects, with double blind tests and confirmation. I'm not sure if these algorithms are now in use by the latest Dolby Surround upmixing algorithm, and of course every implementation of an upmixing algorithm in a commercial av processor, is not exactly the same, depending on dsp capabilities and available cpu load in each machine.

I even read 2 aes papers about headphone target curves. I don't know if these are implemented in any commercial headphone amp up today. Dirac has a headphone microphone (like a stupid head) and gives the possibility to adjust the target curve of the headphones, and go figure what the heck is genelec doing with headphones, adjusting the sound by photos of your head and shoulders, with $500. You can easily find the link in Genelec's site, ok here it is:

https://www.genelec.com/aural-id

So, are we interested in a headphone amp/dac that doesn't have the capability to implement target curves and Genelec's aural id, or what? Just sinad? Heck no.

There are many black boxes around these things, closed in chips and in under the table deals? I don't know, but i do know that we customers don't have any information about these things, no measurements, no technical specifications, just some dolby stamps on a black box with hdmi inputs.

It sucks.

 

[audioBliss]

@Dimifoot exactly, this is very important to understand and why I'm personally so interested in the AVR measurements. To me these are the only interesting ones except amps that is. 2 channel is cool and all but then you still need multisub and room eq below schroeder and 2 channel products like that are far and few between and it feels like a waste of money to only being able to handle 2 channels.

 

[QMuse]

Before we discuss the merits of multichannel/immersive setups we have to agree on the scientific basics of multisub, RoomEq below the Schroeder fr. and down-sloping target curves, even in 2-channel setups.

This is the absolute minimum.

While I agree with what you said I would like to remind you that Schroeder frequency is not a hard limit above which room influence to FR magically stops to happen. Truth is that above Schroeder or transition frequeny lies so called transition region, which typcally spans up to 600-700Hz, in which room also affects FR but to a lesser extent than below the Schroeder frequency. For that reason region should be EQ-ed if found necessary, but filters with smaller Q (say Q<=5) and smaller gain (say +/-3dB) are recommended.

 

[Dimifoot]

I would like to request @amirm to consider an addition to his processors (AV or 2-channel gear) reviews:

A section that will objectively measure in room performance!

How does the product under review and the included mic measures and maps the room ? With measurements.
How does the product under review manages crossovers and multisub integration? With measurements.
How does the product under review performs RoomEq, both in the frequency domain and in the time domain? With measurements.
etc

@amirm you have a 5 channel Revel setup in your room, what do you think?

This objective data, together with the AP measurements will provide a real life objective review.

While I agree with what you said I would like to remind you that Schroeder frequency is not a hard limit above which room influence to FR magically stops to happen.

I remember . But we have to agree on a minimum common ground for discussion.

 

[audioBliss]

But above 300Hz it's really easy to take care of with room treatments(and often it's actually the speakers that need upgrading). Don't forget that fixing the source of the problem is always the best. 100-300Hz is also not too bad to take care of with treatments but a bit more troublesome. But this region is quite easy for something like Dirac to take care of, it's above this that it's way more tricky for microphones and algorithms to know the difference between direct sound and other sound. Or rather below this frequency it doesn't really matter since the room and speaker sound is one and the same.

Below 100Hz is difficult to treat and the treatments will be huge and/or complex. But Dirac with multi sub has proven to be able to handle this quite well and with the new Tier 1 BM module it will be excellent. Single point EQ with REW will result in only one point in space being calibrated. Measure 50cm to the left and right of this point and you will see the frequency response is crazy. This is not true for a properly treated room - you will get like +-1-2dB.

The shortcut here is to use multi sub with more advanced room correction like Dirac, Room Perfect, Trinnov etc. But important to note, in my opinion at least, even with a properly treated room for low frequencies these types of room correction are still needed for excellent sound. High resolution time alignment between speakers is important as well as getting the correct bass slope.

 

[digicidal]

Before we discuss the merits of multichannel/immersive setups we have to agree on the scientific basics of multisub, RoomEq below the Schroeder fr. and down-sloping target curves, even in 2-channel setups.

This is the absolute minimum.

Are we forgetting about these requirements and focusing only on measurements of DACs (most of them can’t offer what I have described), declining the winner on the smaller third decimal number? That reminds me of the streetlight effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect

Measurements of course must be done, and @amirm is helping us users with his reviews, but also with influencing everyone to apply pressure to Companies to publish proper measurements.
But we should separate inadequate DACs (the ones that don’t offer the three pre-requirements that I mentioned above) to the ones that can serve as real SOTA devices in the real world, even if they are only 2.2 channel devices.

A SINAD of 115dbs is of no use if the device doesn’t offer Room Eq, multisub management and crossover options, and target curve manipulation (headphone use excluded).

Agreed... however, it's also important to note that there are much more economical routes to pursue on the non-immersive side of things. There are a number of inexpensive (or free) software players and/or roon endpoint devices which can have filters and EQ loaded - including Dirac for $350 and some labor. There are several others that provide a relatively painless approach (with perhaps less than SOTA DAC performance, but everything else) in a single hardware solution (for around $1500) i.e. miniDSP SHD or NAD C658 and many other options for north of that (but far less than the average 16ch processor at least).

The question isn't whether 115dB+ of SINAD is required however... nor is it debatable that EQ is beneficial. The debate centers around why it's apparently impossible for a company to provide BOTH... for less than $20K (other than artificial "exclusivity"). I've yet to hear a compelling argument on that front. There's plenty of "it doesn't really matter" or "that wasn't a priority" - well, there's arguably no point to anything not required for basic survival if you follow that line of reasoning far enough.

I know I'd love to say that to my clients... "Sure, I could have done a much better job on your project... but this meets all the basic requirements, so shut up!" I could probably still make a decent income even... but I definitely wouldn't be expecting repeat business nor any referrals.

I would like to request @amirm to consider an addition to his processors (AV or 2-channel gear) reviews:

A section that will objectively measure in room performance!

How does the product under review and the included mic measures and maps the room ? With measurements.
How does the product under review manages crossovers and multisub integration? With measurements.
How does the product under review performs RoomEq, both in the frequency domain and in the time domain? With measurements.
etc

@amirm you have a 5 channel Revel setup in your room, what do you think?

This objective data, together with the AP measurements will provide a real life objective review.

I remember . But we have to agree on a minimum common ground for discussion.

How few reviews do you want him to do then? @amirm already does a huge amount of work in the reviews currently... and to some extent it would still be pointless... they would just be measurements of his room. I'm not sure there's all that much he could even deliver in terms of data that isn't already covered by Toole's and Olive's data and Amir's related threads already present on the site if someone looks hard enough.

 

[Dimifoot]

There are a number of inexpensive (or free) software players and/or roon endpoint devices which can have filters and EQ loaded - including Dirac for $350 and some labor.

But you can’t connect subs to those

miniDSP SHD or NAD C658 and many other options for north of that

These are nice for 2 channel reproduction

The debate centers around why it's apparently impossible for a company to provide BOTH... for less than $20K

I think we already know some of the issues involved, they were presented in this thread previously. Of course we want better and cheaper gear in the future.

The question isn't

My question is how can we recommend a device that doesn’t offer the basic stuff (room Eq, Multisub and target curve manipulation) to the unaware reader. And then the cable/snake oil hunt starts

I will always prefer a processor with a SINAD of 90db that gives me these three basic functions as long as it’s bug-free and not malfunctioning (we have seen that many times here unfortunately), over any simple 2 channel DAC with a SINAD of 115db that doesn’t.

And this is not my subjective view of things, but an obvious conclusion after reading books like the @Floyd Toole one

 

[SimpleTheater]

I still haven't heard a room correction that sounded better than no room correction in the setups I've heard them on. I've heard them sound at best different (and usually worse) but not better. I've listened to YPAO, Emotiva's old room correction, Audysssey, TACT, DIRAC.

YPAO works for me by setting speaker distances, especially the four ceiling speakers in my system. I have to tweak the rest. However, it’s greatest ability was when a friend just bought a 5.1 system and when we went to calibrate it, it showed one of his PSB tower speakers was out of phase. We double checked and he wired it correctly, but someone miswired it at the factory. For this reason alone I always recommend running room correction, even if you don’t use the settings.

 

[QMuse]

But above 300Hz it's really easy to take care of with room treatments(and often it's actually the speakers that need upgrading). Don't forget that fixing the source of the problem is always the best. 100-300Hz is also not too bad to take care of with treatments but a bit more troublesome. But this region is quite easy for something like Dirac to take care of, it's above this that it's way more tricky for microphones and algorithms to know the difference between direct sound and other sound. Or rather below this frequency it doesn't really matter since the room and speaker sound is one and the same.

Below 100Hz is difficult to treat and the treatments will be huge and/or complex. But Dirac with multi sub has proven to be able to handle this quite well and with the new Tier 1 BM module it will be excellent. Single point EQ with REW will result in only one point in space being calibrated. Measure 50cm to the left and right of this point and you will see the frequency response is crazy. This is not true for a properly treated room - you will get like +-1-2dB.

The shortcut here is to use multi sub with more advanced room correction like Dirac, Room Perfect, Trinnov etc. But important to note, in my opinion at least, even with a properly treated room for low frequencies these types of room correction are still needed for excellent sound. High resolution time alignment between speakers is important as well as getting the correct bass slope.

Room treatment and room EQ should be seen as complement methods, not alternative.
Also, treating room for HT vs for music listening is not done the same way.

Besides, room treatment and multiple subs are simply not an option for a number of audiophilles as living space doesn't allow for them or because of low WAF.

 

[hugodlc]

I still haven't heard a room correction that sounded better than no room correction in the setups I've heard them on. I've heard them sound at best different (and usually worse) but not better. I've listened to YPAO, Emotiva's old room correction, Audysssey, TACT, DIRAC.

For my setup I first treated the room, (basement home theater) by opening the ceiling and adding rock wool to the hollow cavity between the joists, then added 2" and 4" panels around the room to tame reflections and absorbing some of the nasties.
Then laser measured the speaker distances and using REW and applied the delays and suggested correction to my BSS 160 unit. Then re-measured and re-adjusted, this was repeated 3 or 4 times per speaker never boosting or cutting more than a couple dB's per filter. (And then adjusted volume to the EQ bypass setting, and A-B re-checked by ear to make sure it was actually helping and not the other way around) I did EQ above the room transition frequency for a particular spot in the room (my mixing position) but I tested uniformity and in the end softened the filters so minimal EQ was being done, while achieving the most transparent results.
It is very time consuming, but in the end I achieved the curve I wanted, and the work I do in my room translates exceptionally well to other mixing stages.

But the approach is first treat the room, then get exceptionally flat speakers wit good amplification, and only then, apply subtle EQ.
You can't fix a bad room/speaker with eq.

Edit
On a weird note, my system performs exceptionally good, and just for kicks I ran Audissey on my Marantz av7702 to see/hear what it would do, and it did make things worse, I ran it twice and both times it sounded different from each other and worse than my correction. It wrongly calculated speaker distances, etc... I also tried running it on top of my room correction and no, thanks.

 

[QMuse]

For my setup I first treated the room, (basement home theater) by opening the ceiling and adding rock wool to the hollow cavity between the joists, then added 2" and 4" panels around the room to tame reflections and absorbing some of the nasties.
Then measured using REW and applied the suggested correction to my BSS 160 unit. Then re-measured and re-adjusted, this was repeated 3 or 4 times per speaker never boosting or cutting more than a couple dB's per filter. (And then adjusted volume to the EQ bypass setting, and A-B re-checked by ear to make sure it was actually helping and not the other way around) I did EQ above the room transition frequency for a particular spot in the room (my mixing position) but I tested uniformity and in the end softened the filters so minimal EQ was being done, while achieving the most transparent results.
It is very time consuming, but in the end I achieved the curve I wanted, and the work I do in my room translates exceptionally well to other mixing stages.

But the approach is first treat the room, then get exceptionally flat speakers wit good amplification, and only then, apply subtle EQ.
You can't fix a bad room/speaker with eq.

It would be nice if you can post your final REW measurements to illustrate what you said.

 

[hugodlc]

It would be nice if you can post your final REW measurements to illustrate what you said.

I edited my post to add the pics

 

[QMuse]

I edited my post to add the pics

Nice.

For better interpretation of your graphs I suggest you adjust y-scale resolution to 5dB and x-scale to range 20Hz-20kHz.

 

[hugodlc]

Nice.

For better interpretation of your graphs I suggest you adjust y-scale resolution to 5dB and x-scale to range 20Hz-20kHz.

Thanks, never thought to change the preset display.

I've since added ceiling atmos speakers, so will have to re-calibrate the system and include those (right now they're just delay, xover and level adjusted)

 

[QMuse]

Thanks, never thought to change the preset display.

I've since added ceiling atmos speakers, so will have to re-calibrate the system and include those (right now they're just delay, xover and level adjusted)

Your graphs look very decent but with your current scaling it is difficult to say if you managed to get linearity within say +/-3dB.

 

[audioBliss]

Room treatment and room EQ should be seen as complement methods, not alternative.
Also, treating room for HT vs for music listening is not done the same way.

Besides, room treatment and multiple subs are simply not an option for a number of audiophilles as living space doesn't allow for them or because of low WAF.

I agree, both treatment and room correction is needed.

If room treatment and multiple subs are not possible at least some sort of advanced room correction can be used. But then again not too many of these types of 2 channels products are out there. There is a NAD product, Lyngdorf and a miniDSP one basically.

But instead most dedicated two channel listeners don't use any of this and resort to try and change the sound with different cables, players, amps etc. People will get it one day though - it's usually enough to hear a two channel system with Dirac and multi sub to get the "aha" moment.

Then again all this is expensive and you might not have the space, WAF or whatever. But the more people that buy products that support subwoofers and room correction the better for everybody - more bugs will be found, more manufacturers will prioritise it etc.

Just look at Monoprice, they were basically just making cheap stuff before and now since they realized that you need to be a software company to go to the next level they are way ahead of the game even with their first try leaving manufacturers with 20+ years in the game in the dust. Emotiva tried but they didn't get it's about creating a great software team and not all about the hardware. If everything in the RMC-1 worked flawlessly software wise I think a lot would be forgiven..

I think it would be great for Hi-fi in general if more 2 channel audiophiles started demanding room correction and subwoofer outputs.

 

[Koeitje]

I think it would be great for Hi-fi in general if more 2 channel audiophiles started demanding room correction and subwoofer outputs.

Just a subwoofer out and high pass filter for the mains would be such a great thing in a stereo setup, but only Parasound has made stereo pre-amps that do so. Its sad really.

 

[QMuse]

I agree, both treatment and room correction is needed.

If room treatment and multiple subs are not possible at least some sort of advanced room correction can be used. But then again not too many of these types of 2 channels products are out there. There is a NAD product, Lyngdorf and a miniDSP one basically.

From what I have seen and tried REW would do a better job with room EQ than those products you mentioned and many software players provide support for using room EQ filters created with REW.

I think it would be great for Hi-fi in general if more 2 channel audiophiles started demanding room correction and subwoofer outputs.

I cannot agree more. Unfortunately there are so many of audiophilles not aware of importance of room EQ but willing to brag all day about DACs SINAD.

I also hope that companies like SMSL and Topping would soon start producing some cheap 4 or 8 channel DACs as miniDSP U-DAC8 is not really of good quality and alternatives are quite expensive.

 

[hugodlc]

Your graphs look very decent but with your current scaling it is difficult to say if you managed to get linearity within say +/-3dB.

It's probably close to that range. Some speakers behaved better and got closer with less adjustments, I fought the urge to get a flat visual line that sounded worse to my ears.
That's why it was very time consuming, because adjusting for flat didn't necessarily sound better, and most of the time a more subtle adjustment sounded better even if it didn't make the graph flat.

That's why I have my doubts about automatic room correction. The automatic part.

 

[peng]

The NAD T758 v3 is the worst receiver Amir has rated, however since it comes with Dirac I would argue it still sounds better than anything that does not (Audyssey, YPAO, no correction, etc.). Even at higher price points. I also have response graphs to show this, you really see how junk Audyssey is when you put it against a much more competent system.

I have response graphs too comparing Dirac Live standalone (albeit 2ch/beta) and XT32 that shows if Audyssey is junk then they both are, but they are not. I am referring to the 15-300 Hz range. The Audyssey editor app allows one to set the freq range. Anyway, we are all entitled to our opinions, but that does not always equate to "facts".