Emotiva RMC-1 AV Processor Review

[jhaider]

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.

You severely underestimate how much work is required to do that. Additionally, those are not measurements that leverage Amir’s capital investment in measurement equipment. Anyone with a calibrated small capsule omni microphone and a computer with HDMI out can take such measurements.

That said, you may see something of interest to you soon

 

[Francis Vaughan]

All of the room correction, sub integration, and indeed every part of the processing chain is a big nasty black box. It seems clear that for the most part few of the HT processor vendors have much control over what actually happens inside these black boxes, and the scope for them to mess up is limited to mistakes in integration. Even Trinnov probably have little to no control over the insides of the Dolby and DTS decoding. This makes measurements of how any individual processor or AVR handles all of these processing steps something of a second hand question. This isn't good.

Any issues in room correction, for instance, in a Dirac or Audessy enabled device, are going to be the fault of Dirac or Audessy. Unless the integrator screwed up. Futher, the efficacy of these systems isn't the province of the processor vendor. How well the system works is wholly the responsibility of the software vendor. And for that we have almost no useful data at all. These are black boxes filled with proprietary, and sometimes patented IP. You might get some idea what is going on from a mix of reading patents, reading published papers, and maybe white papers (which are sadly often little more than marketing.) But none of this tells you what to actually expect, least of all provide any testable metrics by which to judge an implementation. It isn't as if any of them provide any sort of metrics at all.

I mumbled incoherently in another thread about the need for some sort of an end to end reference recording. Only to look for mistakes and glitches in the integration of the processing chain. Amir caught a mistake in the integration of the Dolby DSP suite in the Emotiva. Who knows how many other mistakes exist in all the other processors, or are still to be caught in the Emotiva. Dolby provide some test tracks, but they are more examples of what can be done: https://developer.dolby.com/tools-media/sample-media/sample-sound-library/

However, this could be really interesting. http://dolbyencodingutility.com/
Free encoding into Dolby Digital of up to 7.1 (no Atmos) for an audio file up to 250MB. Maybe it would be possible to encode the reference test signals used by the AP and test at least one end to end processing pipeline. This could be very revealing. And I suspect, not in a good way.

I suspect one would need to purchase the Dolby plugin for Avid in order to create test signals for a full Atomos end to end. Similarlly for DTS. OTOH, maybe a member here has access to the Dolby and DTS suites, and could create the needed tests.

 

[digicidal]

But you can’t connect subs to those

Sure you can... not to all of them, but many even have 7.1 outputs like my Oppo BDP - and even on dedicated 2ch setups, there are a large number of subs which will at least allow phase and crossover filter on pass-through. Optimal? Hardly, but functional... and free. The appeal of something like the RMC-1 is in it's claimed ability to be TOTL for both types. They specifically mention phenomenal 2ch performance in numerous places:

This finely tuned digital audio is then converted into high-quality analog audio by precision DACs and sent to your amplifiers - via a high-quality analog ladder network volume control and audiophile grade analog circuitry.
...
The RMC-1 offers the full range of audio options, from native playback of DSD audio, to pure analog playback in our audiophile Reference Stereo mode, to full decoding of the latest object oriented sound tracks. With the RMC-1 you really can have it all….. without compromise.
...
Regardless of how you configure it, we designed the RMC-1 first and foremost to deliver true audiophile sound quality, so it always sounds great. As an audio component, whether playing stereo music or multi-channel surround sound, the RMC-1 delivers performance and sound quality equal to those you would expect from the best high-end analog preamp.
...
With the RMC-1, you really can have a superb stereo music system, and a truly awesome home theater audio system, in a single convenient, practical, and easy to master audio component.
...
The RMC-1 takes it to the next level… and is the perfect way to start building a truly state of the art home theater, surround sound, and audiophile stereo music system.

That's just a few of the references in their overview verbiage... sure there can be a large difference in what some companies call "audiophile" from what we would call "high-fidelity" - but they definitely aren't mutually exclusive, rather intimately related. The term has taken a beating from snake-oil salesman, but that's a perversion of it's meaning IMO (and Webster's agrees with me).

Thousands upon thousands of Emotiva customers are extremely satisfied with their excellent preamps and amps. Unbeatable for the money, especially the amps.

Russ

I agree, and I have several. However, I would strongly dispute "unbeatable for the money" unless you are decidedly against pro-audio gear for some reason. Emotiva amps are not superlative as far as noise, output, aesthetics, durability, etc... they are very competitively priced for reasonably performant amplification however. Pay even 50% more and you can have quieter, better built, better looking (IMO) gear... pay 50% less and you can have as much or more power with only a bit more noise - but ugly as hell (again IMO) - by going with budget Crown amps or DIY IcePower modules from Parts Express. In the case of the latter, I went ahead and paid the Emotiva "premium" of ~$120 extra per channel for mine (PA-1's) but they don't sound or measure differently than someone who saved the premium and built their own - it's the exact same module after all.

I think Emotiva makes some really good, inexpensive gear - but they also make some very overpriced, over-promised, and under-delivered gear as well. And they've made some absolute garbage as well (the amps in my Ultra12 subs were a perfect example) - at least the cabs and drivers weren't... they work OK as passives.

 

[Dimifoot]

and even on dedicated 2ch setups, there are a large number of subs which will at least allow phase and crossover filter on pass-through.

In this type of configuration, Amir’s measurements become irrelevant.

 

[Dimifoot]

You severely underestimate how much work is required to do that.

I know how much work that takes. It’s about two extra hours.

If you don’t measure these parameters, one way or another, you will never know how will a prepro really sound.

If you just measure what easy and convenient, then the streetlight effect is what you are advocating:

“A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, "this is where the light is.”

You could of course just measure once for each software available and then use these measurements to compliment the specific’s product review, as long as the provided mic is the same.

We will never know how it sounds unless this is measured. If these are not included, we should know that Amir’s measurements show only how well a product is engineered, not how it sounds. (If it’s not completely broken and the SINAD is within reasonable limits).

 

[Dimifoot]

many even have 7.1 outputs like my Oppo BDP

I know and love the Oppo’s, I own two of those, the 203 and the Cambridge 752 (it’s a Oppo 103 with Wolfson DACs).

They do offer some processor functions like basic bass management, and they measure well.

It’s a reasonable way to set an entry-point system, but they don’t include Room Eq software and target curve manipulation. That means that you need a computer based software or an alternative device.

 

[QMuse]

You could of course just measure once for each software available and then use these measurements to compliment the specific’s product review, as long as the provided mic is the same.

That would be a better idea, assuming different installations of the software on various HW platforms result in the same functionality (same number of PEQs, etc.).

P.S. .. as long as the provided mic is calibrated.

 

[digicidal]

In this type of configuration, a few of Amir’s measurements might become less relevant.

FTFY. Is the resultant output into free space of paramount importance, or is the signal path and fidelity of the DUT? You call for measurements of the former as the only reliable method of analysis (in which case it matters little whether a passive or active network is used - nor which transducers/boxes it affects). In this case, the devices/software used are all equally valid, as the result is the only metric of consequence.

On the other hand if the DUT is merely tested for signal fidelity from various inputs to the output stage... then nearly every test @amirm runs will be completely relevant. They may not completely describe the resulting SQ or audibility from a specific channel... but that doesn't invalidate the metric in the least. I need to know which windmill we're tilting at here, Don.

I know and love the Oppo’s, I own two of those, the 203 and the Cambridge 752 (it’s a Oppo 103 with Wolfson DACs).

They do offer some processor functions like basic bass management, and they measure well.

It’s a reasonable way to set an entry-point system, but they don’t include Room Eq software and target curve manipulation. That means that you need a computer based software or an alternative device.

Which is why I discussed using REW to roll-your-own filters and/or get the VST plugin for Dirac. Regardless, the thread is about the RMC-1 which would require exactly the same gymnastics to have any room eq... at least until they get Dirac actually implemented in it.

 

[Dimifoot]

That would be a better idea, assuming different installations of the software on various HW platforms result in the same functionality (same number of PEQs, etc.).

P.S. .. as long as the provided mic is calibrated.

Exactly!

A double blind study comparing the RoomEq software's similar to the one Sean Olive conducted 10 years ago (but with more participants)
would also help, it could be used as a reference point.

Is the resultant output into free space of paramount importance, or is the signal path and fidelity of the DUT? You call for measurements of the former as the only reliable method of analysis (in which case it matters little whether a passive or active network is used - nor which transducers/boxes it affects). If it's the former, then the devices/software used are all equally valid, as the result is the only metric of consequence.

Let me summarise and rephrase, so we don't get lost here:

Its a pre-requirement and very important in sound reproduction to use multiple subs, RoomEq for the bass (below the Schroeder) and a down sloping target curve (+of course well-designed speakers). This is (should be) common knowledge.
If a dac/processor can't offer those, for me (and that is not subjective) it's useless, apart from headphone use.

It doesn't have a head to start with, nor arms and legs .

These parameters affect perceived sound in a huge way, much more than a SINAD of 115db compared to a 90db.

I never said that these are the "only reliable method of analysis", but that they are very important.

I just want all available information and measurements, including of course the ones that @amirm performs, to make a judgement of how a device sounds, not how well it is engineered.
Out of those, I will take into account what's audible and what's not, what affects the SQ more and what doesn't, and what's broken, buggy or unusable.

Regardless, the thread is about the RMC-1 which would require exactly the same gymnastics to have any room eq... at least until they get Dirac actually implemented in it.

The RMC-1 at the moment is unusable . I knew that before Amir's review, that's why I didn't buy it- I had high hopes for it.
Amir's measurements confirmed that.

This became obvious to everyone after the first pages of this thread, so nothing else to discuss on the specific prepro.
Lets go off topic

 

[Francis Vaughan]

To add to my previous post. A test suite for the AP does exist to test Dolby implementations.
https://www.ap.com/technical-library/dolby-confidence-tests-with-apx/
Sadly you need to be a licensee of Dolby. Which isn't much use. It means there is no independent testing possible using this suite. That isn't a good state of affairs.

 

[digicidal]

To add to my previous post. A test suite for the AP does exist to test Dolby implementations.
https://www.ap.com/technical-library/dolby-confidence-tests-with-apx/
Sadly you need to be a licensee of Dolby. Which isn't much use. It means there is no independent testing possible using this suite. That isn't a good state of affairs.

And likely by design.

There is so much perpetrated on the unwitting consumer under the guise of "copy protection" and "brand identity" - but short of writing pointless letters to politicians who lunch on the companies' dime... not much that can be done about it. I understand the difficulties from their side as well however, even with all these so called protections and obfuscation methods... it seems it takes only moments for them to be broken or reverse engineered by pirates and unscrupulous competitors. Even Topping can't escape knock-offs from it's own backyard, and they sell at the slimmest of margins already IMO.

 

[Koeitje]

Sure you can... not to all of them, but many even have 7.1 outputs like my Oppo BDP - and even on dedicated 2ch setups, there are a large number of subs which will at least allow phase and crossover filter on pass-through. O

I've searched for subwoofers with a high pass filter to pass through to my fronts. I haven't found any.

 

[markus]

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

1. Depends on the room correction system the AVR/AVP employs. It is more or less the same for different brands/models so it is something that should be explored in threads specific to Dirac Live, MultEQ, etc.
2. I agree these need to be checked as I've found plenty of issues with bass management implementations in the past. A reviewer should also look into implementation of tone controls and user adjustable trims as often they are implemented incorrectly as well.
3. See 1.

If these are not included, we should know that Amir’s measurements show only how well a product is engineered, not how it sounds. (If it’s not completely broken and the SINAD is within reasonable limits).

That "little" is way more information we could get from the majority of "expert" reviews in the past. I'm tired of "sounds good to me" style reviews that I find intellectually insulting.

 

[Dimifoot]

1. Depends on the room correction system the AVR/AVP employs. It is more or less the same for different brands/models so it is something that should be explored in threads specific to Dirac Live, MultEQ, etc.

And taken into account in each AV product review

2. I agree these need to be checked as I've found plenty of issues with bass management implementations in the past. A reviewer should also look into implementation of tone controls and user adjustable trims as often they are implemented incorrectly as well.

True

That "little" is way more information we could get from the majority of "expert" reviews in the past. I'm tired of "sounds good to me" style reviews that I find intellectually insulting.

I never implied otherwise.
Thats why I am not a subscriber in The Absolute Sound or anywhere else, but I am very happy to be a "Forum Donor" here .

 

[Costas EAR]

I've searched for subwoofers with a high pass filter to pass through to my fronts. I haven't found any.

Did you see the Presonus?

Of course the Neumanns and genelecs have these options. Up to 7.1 bass management is provided with these subs.

 

[digicidal]

I've searched for subwoofers with a high pass filter to pass through to my fronts. I haven't found any.

There's a ton of them... but it's rarely advertised. Just look at the amps for a low-level output or "satellite" output. Most of the Axiom subs have them, SVS subs too, Rythmik as well, but not with all amps. In general, most DSP enabled subs and almost all pro-audio subs will (since they're designed to pair with their own powered monitors in many cases).

 

[BDWoody]

There's a ton of them... but it's rarely advertised. Just look at the amps for a low-level output or "satellite" output. Most of the Axiom subs have them, SVS subs too, Rythmik as well, but not with all amps. In general, most DSP enabled subs and almost all pro-audio subs will (since they're designed to pair with their own powered monitors in many cases).

I know the Velodyne DD+ I got many years ago has that capability..

 

[markus]

And taken into account in each AV product review

There's plenty of information out there on how these room correction systems work so I'm not sure what you're asking for other than mentioning in the review what RCS the DUT offers. That information can already be extracted from the marketing material though.

 

[digicidal]

Did you see the Presonus?

Of course the Neumanns and genelecs have these options. Up to 7.1 bass management is provided with these subs.

Even the ultra cheap JBL LS310S does this... allowing for LFE "simulation" but also a simple 80Hz filter or an external setting to deactivate the outputs entirely. Naturally, you're not getting full features on that one... but for $400 you're lucky it comes with options at all IMO.

 

[QMuse]

There's plenty of information out there on how these room correction systems work so I'm not sure what you're asking for other than mentioning in the review what RCS the DUT offers. That information can already be extracted from the marketing material though.

I disagree. No company would disclose details about how their room EQ algorithms work, but luckily for us that is not necessary, as it is not about how they work but about how WELL they work. The only way to test that is to measure the corrected response and check it against the target that has been set. I don't remeber seeing that been done anywhere..