Emotiva RMC-1 AV Processor Review

[RickSanchez]

I think this is a good post with some interesting points. I'm new to the ASR forums here and I have found them incredibly useful, and I think the absolute objectivity of Amirs measurements is a good thing for the industry....but perhaps there should be more emphasis here in these forums as to what is audible and what isn't in terms of products not measuring to the ideal. Having said that I have seen comments by Amir in various reviews he's done where he says "this or that" is not an audible spike or distortion....perhaps it's just about classifying the thresholds for what is audible and what is not audible, perhaps those thresholds are too strict on this site, or maybe they're not....it's food for thought though.

I have always found this post to be beneficial when evaluating Amir's measurements for DACs and amps. It serves as a guide to relate the measurements to audibility, using both strict limits and what flipflop refers to as "lenient limits".

• https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-thresholds-of-amp-and-dac-measurements.5734/

 

[amirm]

Why Lonnie can´t speak here with Amirm about the testing methods and results to clear things up? He implies something and then send likes for the Emotiva lapdogs & angry owners in the Emotiva forum who started raging to Amir and some new members talking about measurements.

Yes, the AP are standardized, but the test he is running is not a canned test. If you have ever used an AP, you know you have the ability to set up a test in anyway you want or you can choose to use a canned test.

No incompetence stated or implied. Just like a previous post I did, he simply chooses to do his test in his way. I'm not saying he is wrong, its just different.

I'm not picking a fight here, I'm simply presenting the facts.

Lonnie

The measurements they post shows inexperience in using the Audio Precision analyzer. Look the dashboard for example that they post:

Look at the FFT. The vertical scale is "dBrA" which is what I use. This is a relative scale. You set its maximum and then that would be 0 dB. They lowered the volume by -20 dB but did NOT set dBrA to that. So now all the spikes shown in that FFT are misleading. Notice the same in my measurements:

Notice how the distortion products properly show because dBrA has been set to Processor's output level so 1 kHz tone peak correctly shows up at 0 dB.

Notice also the last line in my measurements. It shows the sample rate, what type of input was used and most importantly, the bandwidth of the test (10 Hz to 22.4 kHz). Theirs has none of that. As a result, we have no idea over what bandwidth the noise was measured for THD+N. Nor the sample rate they used.

Here is Audio Precision itself on this topic: https://www.ap.com/blog/thd-and-thdn-similar-but-not-the-same/

Not saying this changes the picture since their results are poor anyway but that it shows they lack proper experience in operating the Audio Precision analyzer. They don't understand the importance of parameters that go into this dashboard and how they can impact the shown information.

So if I were them, I would stop talking up that they know how to run these tests, or that they are following some kind of standard. Neither is true.

My tests have been developed over nearly 300 products measured and scrutinized by countless manufacturers. I suggest that they follow what I am doing than pretend they know what they are doing.

 

[amirm]

Let's take the Neumann 310 for example to use with this emotiva avr.
I copy the following from 310 specs:

Output level control (output level in 1 m based on 0 dBu input level): 94; 100; 108; 114 dB SPL

That is a bogus spec. All that control does is change the input gain. It has nothing to do with achieving or generating that SPL level. I know, I tested it.

 

[Dimitri]

Terrible idea. (you know who you are).
A+ however for effort and eloquence.

Let's keep measuring until we get a good one and publish "that"!

 

[MZKM]

scrutinized by countless manufacturers.

And fellow members

 

[Timbo2]

Look at the FFT. The vertical scale is "dBrA" which is what I use. This is a relative scale. You set its maximum and then that would be 0 dB. They lowered the volume by -20 dB but did NOT set dBrA to that. So now all the spikes shown in that FFT are misleading...

Notice how the distortion products properly show because dBrA has been set to Processor's output level so 1 kHz tone peak correctly shows up at 0 dB.

Thank you! I was trying to figure out why your graph was so " data noisy" compared to theirs!

 

[amirm]

We can use just 2 diagrams, the first is the average room noise and the second is the 100 phon curve, the maximum tolerable sound level, the pain levels.

What pain? We are not talking about continuous tone or noise where you may have gotten that from. A number of peer reviewed AES journal papers show that the desirable peak to reproduce concert hall performance is in neighborhood of 120 to 122 dB front. Musical peaks (and movie effects) haver short excursions that go up that high. But do not stay there. Our reference theater could hit 116 dB peaks and while that was scary loud, it was not at all painful.

Suggest starting with: “Dynamic-Range Issues in the Modern Digital Audio Environment, ” Fielder, Louis D., JAES Volume 43 Issue 5 pp. 322-339; May 1995

And remember, system noise is directional coming from speakers so it is more audible than ambient noise that is omni. From what I recall, ambient noise needs to be 6 dB louder to match the threshold of detection from speakers.

And no, you don't get threshold shifts of your hearing during momentary peaks. That again occurs with continuous exposure to noise, etc.

 

[Costas EAR]

That is a bogus spec. All that control does is change the input gain.

Of course. That's the way the cookies crumble!

Lower input gain also provide lower noise level at silence.

 

[Blumlein 88]

The measurements they post shows inexperience in using the Audio Precision analyzer. Look the dashboard for example that they post:

Look at the FFT. The vertical scale is "dBrA" which is what I use. This is a relative scale. You set its maximum and then that would be 0 dB. They lowered the volume by -20 dB but did NOT set dBrA to that. So now all the spikes shown in that FFT are misleading. Notice the same in my measurements:

Notice how the distortion products properly show because dBrA has been set to Processor's output level so 1 kHz tone peak correctly shows up at 0 dB.

Notice also the last line in my measurements. It shows the sample rate, what type of input was used and most importantly, the bandwidth of the test (10 Hz to 22.4 kHz). Theirs has none of that. As a result, we have no idea over what bandwidth the noise was measured for THD+N. Nor the sample rate they used.

Here is Audio Precision itself on this topic: https://www.ap.com/blog/thd-and-thdn-similar-but-not-the-same/

View attachment 51857

Not saying this changes the picture since their results are poor anyway but that it shows they lack proper experience in operating the Audio Precision analyzer. They don't understand the importance of parameters that go into this dashboard and how they can impact the shown information.

So if I were them, I would stop talking up that they know how to run these tests, or that they are following some kind of standard. Neither is true.

My tests have been developed over nearly 300 products measured and scrutinized by countless manufacturers. I suggest that they follow what I am doing than pretend they know what they are doing.

Ray Dennison does say at the start of the measurement section he is using 48khz/24 pcm for all these tests.
@amirm

Another thing I wonder is if these various formats and chips mean doing the various DSP one has to dither two or three extra times? This would erode the noise floor though it doesn't explain the distortion and noise spikes in the noise floor.

 

[Costas EAR]

the desirable peak to reproduce concert hall performance is in neighborhood of 120 to 122 dB front. Musical peaks (and movie effects) haver short excursions that go up that high.

Yes, i second that.
But all these high levels, are just peaks in the bass (first 2 octaves) always!

I enjoy everyday listening to these peaks, even at 130 dB's, always at the first 2 octaves...

My simple analysis of the desired to reproduction dynamic range, includes these peaks, following the 100 phon curve.

Pain starts quite simply above the 100 phon curve, even at peaks, in different spl's, depending upon frequency. There is no pain at 135 dB's at 20 Hz, but try to listen even peaks at 1-2-3kHz at 110 dB's...

 

[Magnus]

Quite a second post Why so angry that the emotiva measured poorly?

I'm not angry that it measured poorly and with its bugs, I wouldn't consider it anyway. But something doesn't have to measure perfect to sound perfect is what I'm trying to get across. What's extremely RARE right now are processors for >11.1 channels. Other than Trinnov, we've had the Denon 8500 with 13-channel support. With so few 13-15 channel options, how picky can a consumer who is interested in higher channel count Atmos (that doesn't cost $30K) afford to be?

I don't have a problem with the measurements. I have problem with the interpretation of them. Where should the cut-off be? Isn't that what a great reviewer should be doing for us, not only taking the measurements but interpreting them in a manner that is actual useful information rather than dismissing a product because its graphs aren't "perfect?"

You can take it a step further. WHY is the DAC performance sub-par? Is it due to trying to cram too much equipment into one box, poor shielding, what? All the review tells me is that it doesn't measure as well as it could. It doesn't express (other than perhaps jitter) whether a consumer would even notice the poor measurements. From what I've saw, I doubt they would. Yes, it's $5k. A Denon 8500 is $4K retail. People LOVE it. While Amirm hasn't measured it (AFAIK), I think he'd be incredibly disappointed in it based on the other D&M equipment measured here (similar rating as the Emotiva overall). How perfect can something be with 13 amp channels plus processing packed into that thing? I haven't seen a single complaint about it on the AVS forums except from people who got a defective one.

I'd just like to see a balance between ideal, audible and actually sounding bad. Ideal is great, but not audible isn't a deal breaker. Where is Lyngdorf on the scale? Not much better rated than Emotiva. It's $12K the last time I looked. Is that "high end"? Is it a status symbol? It's a POS according to that rating if that's all I go by.

The ODDEST thing of all, though is for such a LEMON, the Emotiva still rates a 92/100 on SINAD. A 92 was an "A" the last time I looked at most schools. If it's such a POS, that's kind of odd. It must be that DAC. We all know DACs sound SO different in ABX testing.... Nothing like 0.1dB difference in frequency response or some audible noise at 115dB max volume in a room (try and hear it at that level if something is playing!) Digital has spoiled us. People used to be happy with records (some still are) where a GREAT record might be 78dB of dynamic range when it's new or thereabouts, let alone the groove noise, clicks, pops and far from great wow and flutter. How did people stand it? Some people still think LPs are superior sounding even! Imagine that!

It absolutely is not. That is an Internet myth.

I read that long before the Internet in Hi-Fi rags, although I think it was 45-55 (going by memory isn't the best thing all the time).

As you see, average of the surveyed room had noise around 5 dB where our hearing is most sensitive (between 2 and 5 kHz), NOT 55 to 66 dB. Your dumb single number SPL meter lies to you because it gets fooled by high levels of inaudible noise in bass frequencies (climbing to 40 dB in above survey).

I'm rather offended by the use of the word "dumb". If you want to insult me or what I wrote, I don't want to talk to you. Besides, tell these people their numbers for living rooms are made up myths.

https://www.archtoolbox.com/materia...ectural-acoustics-acceptable-room-levels.html

This one even talks about Stereophile and lists the average room around 50dB. My estimate from memory may have been 10dB off (45-55), but it's hardly enough to argue that a 93dB S/N ratio sucks and that's the basic point. I'm not trying to define precisely where the cutoff should be, but if I can't hear my speakers "hissing" from the seating locations, I'm pretty happy. I'm not happy when my furnace or air conditioner kicks in.

https://www.acousticfields.com/room-ambient-noise-vs-playback-levels/

You don't get it I am afraid. This product is over engineered from parts selection point of view. Why do you think it retails for thousands of dollars? Massive box. Lots of electronics. All meant to imply good precision and performance but doesn't deliver.

You clearly don't seem to get what I'm talking about. Having a high-end part doesn't make something over-engineered. It's a part. They didn't make it. They didn't get stellar performance out of it, but I don't see anywhere in your review WHY that is. That's not what you're here to do? What are you here to do? To tell me it sucks because it doesn't measure perfect even if it's inaudible? How is THAT helpful to me?

You seem mostly hung up on ONE thing and that's the DAC performance. That DAC is NOT why this AVR costs $5000 for god's sake!!! As expensive as that part is, that's not the reason! It's only $1000 more than the Denon 8500 with likely similar performance (in terms of what it would rate based on your other Denon/Marantz reviews) and people LOVE IT over at AVS. Why? It does 13.2 channels of processing! When it came out, NOTHING but the Trinnov could do that! Dolby ATMOS is EVERYTHING in home theater right now! The fact you CANNOT even see what matters and what drives the price tells me all I need to know about your criteria for a good product. It's clear to me that you think of the Emotiva RMC-1 as a giant DAC and NOTHING ELSE.

Emotiva is a budget brand. It is not a luxury AV product.

Budget brand? It may not be high-end, but it's not a budget brand at $5K.

The mixed points about premium vs. discount products in your posts are a bit confusing (you point to Trinnov but still call Emotiva a "status symbol")? I would love to be able to purchase an audibly transparent, Dirac enabled, 12ch-16ch processor without having to pay the Trinnov premium - Emotiva essentially promised this with the RMC-1. Then they failed on the Dirac promise (and even the internal PEQ, apparently) - and now it seems it's also reasonably far from hifi in every other sense as well.

BMWs aren't high-end. They're still status symbols. High-End is Ferrari and the like (that's Trinnov in the comparison). I've seen some well performing BMW and Mercedes vehicles. I've seen some ordinary ones. They still cost more than a Ford or a Chevy or a Subaru (my previous two cars were Subaru WRX models). The say I could get the SAME CAR for half the price, but I'm well off for the middle class or whatever. Emotiva isn't "budget class" (perhaps mid-grade or at least it's supposed to be) but Amirm thinks it is. That says more to me about Amirm's expectations on price and name than anything else. Bill Gates isn't going to think a Ferrari is expensive, after all. My 7012 is as much as I've ever spent on a single receiver (I also own a 7010 that I got used that developed an issue and I bought the 7012 as I needed to show my home theater and I've since repaired the 7010).

I've got a Marantz 8801 now with "mostly inaudible" performance issues... however, it also has all of it's functions working out of the box!

I've never argued against the buggy aspect. Remember, I had to pick ONE thread to bring this up in and I also mentioned the Denon 3500 review (where's the 60xx,70xx series or Denon 4500 series to compare?)

It doesn't have optimal filtering (by design, sigh) but it doesn't have the anomalies seen here either. It's DAC performance is similar (not great) and Audyssey XT32 isn't quite as flexible as DIRAC... but it actually has Audyssey (and it works)... so that's something. Oh and switching inputs, formats, etc. never does anything weird - and never requires powering the unit off... for less money. What was the compelling argument for this device again?!?

The ONLY argument for this device (which could change to some extent if they fix their software) is the 15.x channel support. There are very VERY few models out there to pick from that can natively render that many channels. Due to Disney print-through (locked 7.1.4) crap, I've had to rethink the entire thing, however. I'm currently using so-called "Scatmos" (Center-out Pro Logic processors extract an extra channel mid-way between existing ones) for Top Middle (which gets around the DTS 11-channel limit and locked Disney tracks that don't use top middle since my home theater is 24' long and 3-rows and NEEDS top middle to image directly overhead correctly since the angles are large between front/rear height (I'm set up for Auro-3D as well and can swap speaker sets or run surround height and rear height at the same time in parallel like an Auro theater). I use matrixed front wides and surround #1 speakers for now, but I'm set up for 11.1.6 at the moment (soon to be 11.2.6). I'm looking more at the Monoprice unit at this stage, but it's more for reliability than looking at the DAC stage.

At 20 Hz, listening threshold is at 65 dB's and lets assume that you have the best possible subs to get 130dB's over there to match the 100 phon curve, so the maximum (perceivable by our ears) possible dynamic range is 65 dB's.

At 80 Hz, the average room noise is at 35 dB's and lets assume that you have good speakers to get 105dB's, so maximum possible dynamic range is 70 dB's.

At 1 kHz, the average room noise is at 10 dB's and pain starts at 100dB's over there, so maximum possible dynamic range is 90 dB's at a really really quite room, and i think that 20 dB's of room noise is quite common, so you have 80 dB's of maximum possible dynamic range.

At 10 kHz, listening threshold is at 15 dB's (for very young people) and pain starts at 115dB's over there, so maximum possible dynamic range for a child is 100 dB's, but a child cannot bare so high levels (that's why they are "estimated") and an adult can hear nothing at 15 dB's, so you can say with confidence that the maximum possible dynamic range is between 80-90 dB's over there, depending from age.

I think you've made my point better than I could. A 93dB S/N ratio is perfectly fine in a realistic room with realistic levels and ordinary hearing (people enjoy LPs that have 10s of decibels less dynamic range, let alone clicks and pops, etc.) let alone the average rock music CD from the past two decades that probably has a small fraction of the dynamic range of those LPs on them. Dynamic range isn't everything. Noise is of more concern, but only if I can hear it. Would I like better specs? Sure, why not? But I'm not making my decisions on something I'm not going to hear. I don't know what's so hard to see about that point for some, but it's not a question of engineering past that point for most consumers, but FEATURES and PRICE. Yes, it's expensive. ALL 15-channel AVRs and/or Processors are expensive.

The Monoprice one looks to be the best bet and the most reasonable for the features, but I'd like to see some initial quality and reliability data on it.

Yesssss, but - What happens when they start throwing around the usual subjective adjectives?
Even if you can't get two people to agree on the same adjectives with ABX testing, they'll simply claim that their ears are different than the other person's...but that each of them is correct.
You can't argue with subjective comments.

What subjective adjectives? ABX isn't subjective. It's ONLY about whether or not you can hear a DIFFERENCE in sound or not reliably. The subjective crap might come later if the person can prove they can hear it, but most ABX tests I've seen only prove people like those that work for Stereophile can't hear the things they claim they can and then make high-end reviews over them. The Bob Carver TFM amp thing comes to mind. The guy couldn't hear a difference, but when review time came around, he claimed he magically COULD and easily and that the Carver TFM amp was CRAP in production.... Yeah, saying ANYTHING else would have hurt their high-end profitable advertising dollars....

This a fast moving thread.... I'm struggling to even try and keep up....

There is really no disagreement. Their measurements for the most part match mine. SINAD, THD+N vs Freq, etc. Those are sufficient to damn this product for poor implementation given the much higher fidelity of the components used in them (DAC and Volume control).

Note that neither EMotiva, nor Audioholics have the same high performance analyzer I have. AP makes a multi-channel analyzer which is what they use. To cram all that in there, they reduced performance of the unit.

The fact you need such a high-end piece of equipment to even detect some of the problems tells me...what? The measurement gear hears what the human ear does not once again?

With room correction, reference levels for movies should be 0dB. Now, I can push my system that loud for the occasional scene, but I’m typically -8dB for lossy movies (cable), -12dB for lossless movies (Blu-ray) and -16dB for lossy tv (cable). I never dip to -20dB or lower unless for music/YouTube.

Keep in mind that assumes Hollywood is still following those standards. You only have to buy a Disney UHD lately to realize all the studios do NOT necessarily follow those guidelines for the volume level, let alone use any kind of standard for dynamic range. Disney has been abysmal for years now. The Star Wars Atmos versions on Disney+ are actually a huge step up (they do use objects for a change for more than 7.1.4 support and haven't obliterated the bass or dynamics of the previous BDs).

 

[Magnus]

Wrong, they do.

I should have said SOLEY. Anyone who buys a speaker purely by looking at a graph deserves everything they get!

 

[Koeitje]

I think the biggest issue here is that it costs $5000, if it was $1500-2000 it faults could have been forgiven.

 

[Magnus]

I think the biggest issue here is that it costs $5000, if it was $1500-2000 it faults could have been forgiven.

Show me ONE 15-channel Atmos AVR for $1500-2000.....

My 7012 is 11.2 channel and it was $2500 retail!

The Denon 8500 is 13.2 channel and it's $4000 retail!

Your expectations are OUT OF LINE with REALITY, IMO.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I think the biggest issue here is that it costs $5000, if it was $1500-2000 it faults could have been forgiven.

It would have been easier. And only because of the high channel count. Similar Marantz units would still have better UI, and some auto-correct capability.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Show me ONE 15-channel Atmos AVR for $1500-2000.....

My 7012 is 11.2 channel and it was $2500 retail!

The Denon 8500 is 13.2 channel and it's $4000 retail!

Your expectations are OUT OF LINE with REALITY, IMO.

Other than asking prices do you think those extra channels cost that much extra? It looks to me each time they expand into more channels and newer formats a part of the reason is a short window of time to charge extra premium pricing. Extra channels aren't free, but 3 extra channels doubles cost you think? You really should face that when you look at upper end AVR's and Pre/pros the pre/pros aren't higher due to manufacturing cost. It just doesn't add up. More of a charging what the market will bear situation. Especially with so few players in this particular market.

And yes I get that early adopters always pay a premium.

 

[Koeitje]

Show me ONE 15-channel Atmos AVR for $1500-2000.....

My 7012 is 11.2 channel and it was $2500 retail!

The Denon 8500 is 13.2 channel and it's $4000 retail!

Your expectations are OUT OF LINE with REALITY, IMO.

These prices are created by the very low demand for those amount of channels, not by the quality. So they can ask whatever they want while ignoring performance. Take 2 Okto DACs and slap $2000 worth of processing on them. You aren't going to convince me processing costs that much. Licencing is probably another $1000 and you are done.

 

[Costas EAR]

do you think those extra channels cost that much extra?

Well, yes i do.

There is nothing available with this channel number to buy at a lower price, so this is a good enough evidence of the necessary total cost.

I suppose that if it could be done at a lower price range, someone from nad, marantz, sony, yamaha, philips, whatever, would have done it. Well, it seems that they cannot do it. Can you?

 

[Costas EAR]

Licencing is probably another $1000 and you are done.

Man, you are so wrong...

Just a license for a 32 channel Trinnov for immersive digital outputs, costs more than double of what you said!

Arvus converter from HDMI to AES EBU, costs 850$ for up to 7.1 channels and $2,5k for atmos decoding and 16 digital channels output..

 

[Magnus]

The FACT that DSP chips that can HANDLE that amount of channels just became available in the past year are the REAL reason they cost so much. Only Trinnov uses PC (Intel) processing instead with their custom code to do it (which gets them the full 34 channels for Atmos and 32.2 for DTS:X Pro). EVERYONE else relies on DSP chips (15-channels maximum and until recently, 13 was the max and only the Denon 8500 had it. Everyone else maxed out at 11.1 unless they used matrixed channels like Lyngdorf, for example)

I don't get the feeling the audience on this site is even into home theater or you'd know how important more channels are for those of us that want better more consistent surround sound, especially for more than one row of seats. I have 17.1 speakers installed for 6 seats and it's a revelation compared to 6.1 I used to use before 2 years ago for immersiveness. Unfortunately, six of those channels are true discrete (2 are extracted using Pro Logic and 4 are matrixed).

I mean if all you want is a 2-channel headphone DAC and AMP, well, no wonder you're so disappointed by D&M and now Emotiva products. You're shopping in the wrong place.