Emotiva RMC-1 AV Processor Review

[markus]

Trust me, I'm quite familiar with Acourate. IMO that is the best automated room EQ money can buy. I also think very highly of Dr. Uli Brueggemann who built it. But while I agree with you it can do many things it still doesn't allow flexibility you have when building filters mannually with rePhase.

??? Acourate isn't really "automated". Something like MultEQ (largely) is. There's macros in Acourate though. Haven't used rePhase in a while but back then it didn't exist and first versions were rather limited. Looking at the site now it seems to have grown considerably though.

P.S. Most papers describing MultEQ and Dirac Live can be found in IEEE Xplore, not AES.

 

[BillH]

Read the first pages. There is enough info for you to lose all interest on the device.

And then after that there are a few pages where we have some new forum members arguing that measurements don't tell you how it will sound...

 

[QMuse]

??? Acourate isn't really "automated". Something like MultEQ (largely) is. There's macros in Acourate though.

Last time I checked creating filters with Acourate it was not about pushing sliders to create filters where you set Q factor yourself. Have things changed?
Are you saying that in your opinion Acourate is not an automatic filter creation tool but a mannual one?

P.S. Most papers describing MultEQ and Dirac Live can be found in IEEE Xplore, not AES.

I have yet to find paper describing MultiEQ and Dirac Live in which some true usefull information is revealed.

 

[markus]

Last time I checked creating filters with Acourate it was not about pushing sliders to create filters where you set Q factor yourself. Have things changed?
Are you saying that in your opinion Acourate is not an automatic filter creation tool but a mannual one?

Automated means just that, you switch the device on the rest is done automatically for you. In Acourate you have to design filters manually.

I have yet to find paper describing MultiEQ and Dirac Live in which some true usefull information is revealed.

Well, I offered you just that but I guess the old saying applies: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink...

P.S. It's Audyssey MultEQ not MultiEQ.

 

[jhaider]

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

What planet do you live on?

Tear down a system, install a new prepro in it, run through setup, set up for measurement, measure, analyze measurements, write it all up in two hours? Clearly this is something you’ve never done or thought too deeply about doing.

The actual measurement part, using the Geddes and Blind sound power method, takes under 15 min. Setup and tear down take forever.

That out of the way, you’re not wrong that processing is generally more determinative of sound than electrical measurements. If you want some illustrative room correction measurements follow the link in my signature. The Bryston and Marantz SSPs, Denon AVR, and ELAC compact DAC/integrated have in situ measurements to evaluate the respective RC systems, including the real world accuracy of predicted curves.

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..

You haven’t looked that hard!

 

[Dimifoot]

Clearly this is something you’ve never done or thought too deeply about doing.

Maybe because I have done it hundreds of times.

10min connections for the prepro
20 min system calibration-automated /with a twist
30 min measurements with MMM + on MLP on REW

1 hour for presentation.

If you insist, I will give you an extra hour.

 

[Dimifoot]

What planet do you live on?

Or it might be that in our planet we are fast

I just went in REW and I am uploading screenshots from my last MMM measurement.

First one (Left Speaker) at 12:07

Then R and C, C at 12:13

Three speakers, 6 min in total for MMM. It continues for 7.x.4, but its not so interesting to upload 12 screenshots just to show time elapsed

Amir has 5 speakers...

 

[doodlebro]

Read the first pages. There is enough info for you to lose all interest on the device.

He's got a point though, were still bickering about SINAD and room correction in a general sense and mods asked us to make a new thread for it awhile ago...

 

[Dimifoot]

He's got a point though, were still bickering about SINAD and room correction in a general sense and mods asked us to make a new thread for it awhile ago...

True.

Maybe all these posts/pages should be moved to a new thread.
But it was an interesting read, wasn't it?

 

[markus]

True.

Maybe all these posts/pages should be moved to a new thread.
But it was an interesting read, wasn't it?

If anything you can still learn a lot about human behavior
Regarding testing RCS, I have some ideas how we could move forward if someone opens a new thread on the topic.

 

[amirm]

You measure and compare several systems in the same room using the same target curve.

Not practical unless you mark in 3D space all microphone locations. Even then you have to cross your fingers to get the same correction with the same system.

 

[QMuse]

Not practical unless you mark in 3D space all microphone locations. Even then you have to cross your fingers to get the same correction with the same system.

That is not necessary. Various room EQ systems will have various strategies regarding collecting uncorrected frequency response data. Some will rely on a single sweep while some will require you to take a number of sweeps around LP following their specific pattern while not revealing how they will use them. When you will be checking their final result you can adopt your own strategy, say taking 60+samples with moving microphone method in a predermined pattern around the LP to check how well their corrected result matches the target response that was set for them to achieve. You don't need to follow their own measurement pattern to control them as your own controlling pattern will be much more precised and much better spatially averaged.

 

[RichB]

It is possible to limit connection and repeat some measurements on the out of correction band frequencies to determine the baseline impact of the DSP processing and associated circuitry.

There is some evidence of a negative impact on THD+N incurred from attenuating the signal to provide headroom for bass-management and REQ/PEQ in the digital domain.

- Rich

 

[jhaider]

Not practical unless you mark in 3D space all microphone locations. Even then you have to cross your fingers to get the same correction with the same system.

That’s not necessary. If the system is any good a spatial average over the same general area will be very stable. See my reviews of Marantz AV7702 and Denon X4100 for two reviews with measurements of Audyssey XT32 with no effort to use the same microphone positions.

 

[amirm]

That’s not necessary. If the system is any good a spatial average over the same general area will be very stable.

That hasn't been my experience.

 

[jhaider]

That hasn't been my experience.

If measurements of the room correction system are not stable with changes in microphone placement over the same area (using a spatial average) then the room correction system is deeply flawed and can not be trusted to use.

I have confirmed Audyssey XT32, Dirac Live, and Anthem ARC are stable with varying microphone placements combined to form a spatial average over a given listening area.

 

[Maconi]

It's strange . The title says "Emotiva RMC-1 AV Processor Review", but it is very difficult to find information on 43 pages.

This thread is basically dead at this point lol. The RMC-1 is done and people have converted this thread into a debate about room correction. A warning from the moderator did nothing to bring it back on-topic so I doubt it's going to happen.

 

[RichB]

If measurements of the room correction system are not stable with changes in microphone placement over the same area (using a spatial average) then the room correction system is not worth using.

You should try using REW with multiple mic positions. They are definitely all over the place above 300 Hz in my room small movements of the MIC.

Hopefully, new firmware measurements are coming and that will give us something to talk about.

- Rich

 

[jhaider]

You should try using REW with multiple mic positions. They are definitely all over the place above 300 Hz in my room small movements of the MIC.

REW, FuzzMeasure, Arta, Clio, Soundeasy, anf so on are all equivalent for this task. FuzzMeasure is my preferred measurement software, because I prefer the UI. REW has far surpassed FuzzMeasure in feature set.

I never wrote individual measurements were stable. However, if spatial averages using random samples in a given area are not stable, something.’s wrong with the equipment or technique

 

[RichB]

REW, FuzzMeasure, Arta, Clio, Soundeasy, anf so on are all equivalent for this task. FuzzMeasure is my preferred measurement software, because I prefer the UI. REW has far surpassed FuzzMeasure in feature set.

I never wrote individual measurements were stable. However, if spatial averages using random samples in a given area are not stable, something.’s wrong with the equipment or technique

Of course, without a robot arm their with be variations by slightly different microphone positions. With enough, smoothing though, it will be great

- Rich