Emotiva RMC-1 AV Processor Review

[Gedeon]

To be honest, the day I could think @amirm isn't in the consumer side I'll stop reading his reviews as more valuable than typical subjective opinions to take better decisions.

It doesn't mean DAC/SINAD performance is my main parameter to judge gadgets, but at least, until now, it seems honest and transparent about it. At the same time I don't fully agree in using exactly the same operating ranges to judge different kinds of gear to get the main comparison criteria/numbers. In any case he has been more flexible in this review (a graph showing relationship between SINAD and voltage).

I'm fully enjoying a Marantz 6012 in my setup attached to a competent poweramp. I know AVR SINAD could be around 90-94dbs but I also got HEOS, good enough RoomEQ (XT32)… HDMI switching, Atmos, etc... And all for around 1500€ (AVR+Amp). I think I'm going to live this setup and fully enjoying it for several years with no regrets or "what ifs" ruining my fun.

I don't think AVRs issues are in the "cheap side" of the market. Issues arise when expensive gear behaves like the cheaper one. Btw I'd like to see a review of a Yamaha 5200 processor.

Would you pay 5000€ for this processor ? I wouldn't… SINAD is just another reason for not buying this piece of gear in its actual state (some things could be fixed, I guess).

 

[TommyTwoTone]

Since Amirm bothered to reply, I'll give one last response here.



In other words, you're agreeing it's probably not audible under normal circumstances (let alone "objectionable"). Yet you don't merit the AVR in question on its features (beyond having buggy software), but only measured stats that are unlikely to be noticed by anyone in any listening use whatsoever. So what's the value in the measurements if they can't be heard? You like products designed for dog hearing?

Someone can engineer the a really really great shovel (far better performing pocket DAC), but if a mere average made jack hammer (Emotiva AVR with 16-channel Atmos and room correction, etc.) works functionally far better for moving dirt in every practical circumstance, what difference does it make if the shovel is "perfect" even? Yes, the measurements could be better, but apparently they're not worse than a typical D&M product and on Home Theater forums, those products aren't just popular, the Denon 8500 is king of the hill except for the Trinnov Altitude 32. I don't know what the Trinnov measures, but I'm pretty sure people laying down 30 Grand for one aren't buying it for the DAC section's measurements beyond the hearing range. They're buying it for 34-channel Atmos support, room correction, etc. DTS:X Pro support was just added for free (32.2 speaker support for everything upmixed with Neural X).



If you listen to sound (I don't know care what kind) at a level where your ears can actually hear 116dB of dynamic range in a REAL ROOM, congratulations, you are now DEAF! Seriously. You'd need well over 120dB in any kind of normal room and that's like listening to a Space Shuttle like rocket taking off nearby without any hearing protection! Your "ideal" case is insanity in actual usage. Sorry. That's PRECISELY why I don't take your reviews seriously. Anyone can learn to measure and interpret the meaning. It takes WISDOM to know what is actually important for real world listening and what is absolute FLUFF. You've clearly chosen fluff when it comes to "not recommending" something based on theoretical performance rather than actual audible sound and more importantly for home theater, FEATURES. Emotiva has 16-channel decoding. No one buys a Denon 8500 because they think it's better made than a Denon 4500 or a Marantz 7013. They buy it because they want 13.2-channels instead 11.2.



And NO ONE will hear it! Average QUIET room noise level 55-65db! Average playback volume for movies in home theaters (max peak), 85db! Max I play it at 105dB. Can I hear that noise floor above the room noise floor while things are making explosions at 105dB? You're kidding me, right???



I get it. I'm an EET myself. But I learned a long time ago what OVER ENGINEERING a product means. It means $$$$ lost. Time is money. I jus need an industrial piece of equipment to do what it's designed to do (e.g. separate parts with little or no human intervention). Do I need 99% or 99.2% if the latter costs another $25 million to achieve, but only save $15 million over the lifespan of the device when all is said and done? You want to compare the Emotiva to a pocket DAC. A pocket DAC doesn't do what the Emotiva does. If I could play 15.2 channel Dolby Atmos on that pocket DAC, I'd agree with you. Buy the better engineered product (at a fraction of the cost!) But you're comparing Apples and Oranges. You're thinking DAC section and I'm saying the Emotiva is a HELL of a lot more than just the DAC section. I've seen audiophiles pay THOUSANDS on high-end DACs over the years and I bet not a single one actually heard (in a double blind test) what they think they did.

Guess? That's what double blind testing is for. Things like AAC compression were built around double blind testing. It's just as scientific as any measurement gear and more closely related to what a human can actually hear than what some device can measure.



Premium parts sell well in ads. Measurements that you cannot hear and probably will never see don't. Could they have shaved $1000 off the price using cheaper parts? Sure. But you've got Stereophile types that won't buy it, then (not based on the sound, but based on whatever John Atkinson's replacement tells them what to think...not about the AVR, of course. It's unlikely they will review it. But they do like to talk about PARTS when I read the magazine.

You see you think like an engineer that wants to build the best possible product. I think like an engineer that wants the best possible experience and that means ignoring things that DON'T MATTER (aka INAUDIBLE at any SANE volume). Should this product do better? Probably. I don't know who worked on it or what they know. The software thing is the real bugaboo that would keep me far away.

The thing is BMWs are status symbols. They aren't necessarily better made cars. Emotiva has become a status symbol compared to D&M and other mass market brands. But if money were no object, I'd be buying a Trinnov Altitude 32. Of course, I'd also live in a nicer house and own more than one car. I don't need to read a measurement review of the Trinnov. I already know it does everything all the other processors out there CANNOT do. Its DAC section doesn't worry me in the slightest (and I have not worried about DACs since the late 1980s in general). I simply don't listen loud enough to hear the noise floor nor do frequency response improvements of 0.4dB or whatever impress me in the slightest when the average loudspeaker (high end or not) is +/- 3dB on average (before the room). I buy PSBs for home theater (I have Carver Ribbons in my music only room) because they are +/- 1.5dB. That at least gives my room a fighting chance with treatments and/or correction. But those are numbers that are plainly audible in a room. If the difference were 0.3db better than another set of speakers, I wouldn't worry about it. The room would obliterate the results anyway.

High end speakers don't sell based on their frequency response graphs. Stereophile magazine can plot waterfall plots and impulse response all day long and most of their readership doesn't even know what they're looking at, let alone have REW set up on their notebook to do it themselves. Most are lucky these days to hear a speaker in a bad room at a trade show as the boutique local market dried up long ago. Most people buy on recommendation these days. And I'm saying I want a recommendation based on things I can actually hear and things the device can actually do, not what the DAC section could do that I can't hear anyway.

Amen Magnus, amen! Bias the measurements over the range that we can hear them, under the circumstances we are likely to encounter them during typical use. Also limit all comparisons to equipment with a similar use case. I understand and appreciate Amir's mission but the focus should be on improving these devices within the realm in which we are capable of enjoying them.

Has criteria been quantitatively defined for how a headless vs headed pink panther figurine is awarded?

 

[Dimitri]

It tells you how everything you need to know about Emotiva's goals.

That's because you are drawing conclusions instead of reading the official page .Geez !!!!!!

When Emotiva started, we had one goal: to offer exceptionally designed, high performance products at prices that more people could afford and enjoy.

Dan saw the inefficiencies in the system and the ever-climbing prices, and decided to do something about it.

The result is Emotiva.

 

[carlob]

It is just incredible to me how customers become defenders of companies when reviews like this come out. It is like they forget their place in the world. "Let me pay full price for high-end companies and get bad implementation. I probably won't hear it so it is fine."

It is a defensive reaction, after you spend that sort of money on a piece of hardware you become a PR for the company that screwed you up just because you will not admit that you have been fooled by marketing or whatever. So you now have to defend your purchase decision and the only way to do it is to side with the manufacturer, it's psychology.

 

[Koeitje]

The heck you are talking about? I can show you countless $99 DACs with small, simple PCB that run circles around this processor's DAC subsystem.

You even tested an 8 channel DAC that has pretty much flawless performance. So it doesn't even have anything to do with things being stereo or not.

That's because you are drawing conclusions instead of reading the official page .Geez !!!!!!

Emotiva is high-end redefined. They are redefining it, that's for sure.

 

[SOWK]

@amirm
Ill say it again... Post #79

Otherwise you are fighting over something that could have been setup related.

If Emotiva publishes results that dont show what you show, someone is going to lose credibility.

Could be Emotiva, could be you.

but you really should follow my post get HDMI working and retest.

sorry for being insistent on the subject, but if you could not get the HDMI working the UNIT most definitely is not responding they way it should.

That can most definitely affect the test results.

 

[Krobar]

I have a contact into the company but have not yet reached out.

Audio Control X9, JBL SDP-55 and Arcam AV40 would be interesting for comparison, all use the AV40 as a base. I suspect the JBL will measure the same as the Arcam because the DAC upgrade is just a pin compatible drop in and lets face it AVP/AVRs struggle to exceed 100dB SINAD but the X9 would have to be a different DAC board as far as I can tell.

Functionally the AV40 I have has got a lot better since December firmware. Dirac is a bit buggy in its first release but works fine for 7.1.4, I have one potential bug left and normal operation is fast and stable. OSD is basic but on screen menus are fast and easy to use. I would not expect it to measure as well as the HTP-1 as it is a re-purposed AVR design although if firmware continues to improve at the current pace it will be ahead of the HTP-1 feature wise shortly (Only missing Auro vs the HTP-1 so far and has much more streaming support as well as more speaker layouts and the IMHO useless IMAX/MQA codecs).

 

[rajapruk]

This review alone was worth the small yearly donation

 

[beefkabob]

Why are all the multi-channel setups not just running a PC to a U-DIO8 to active speakers?

 

[SOWK]

Why are all the multi-channel setups not just running a PC to a U-DIO8 to active speakers?

Users that buy these products want Bitstream DTS X and Dolby Atmos.

 

[Krobar]

Why are all the multi-channel setups not just running a PC to a U-DIO8 to active speakers?

I seriously considered this would have probably used the OKTO research DAC but the main issue is the lack of Atmos/DTS:X decoding in software. If you want up to 7.3 then an external DAC, Dirac Live for PC/Mac (This is out of beta and being sold now) and something like Kodi would work well. For Atmos/DTS:X though you need an AVR/AVP.

 

[markus]

@amirm
Ill say it again... Post #79

Otherwise you are fighting over something that could have been setup related.

If Emotiva publishes results that dont show what you show, someone is going to lose credibility.

Could be Emotiva, could be you.

but you really should follow my post get HDMI working and retest.

sorry for being insistent on the subject, but if you could not get the HDMI working the UNIT most definitely is not responding they way it should.

That can most definitely affect the test results.

Why would Amir lose credibility when a $5000 device doesn't respond the way it should? It's not Amir making bold claims about the device. It's Emotiva.

Anyhow, if his analyzer shows different results, then the DUT (device under test) did perform erratic and it's time dig deeper. No need for anyone to lose credibility in the process.

 

[SOWK]

Why would Amir lose credibility when a $5000 device doesn't respond the way it should? It's not Amir making bold claims about the device. It's Emotiva.

Anyhow, if his analyzer shows different results, then the DUT (device under test) did perform erratic and it's time dig deeper.

I already told him how to check for that in post 79.

but he wants to ignore it.

also he keeps saying it is not a setup issue but yet cant get HDMI to work....

Seriously...

What would you call that? A non setup issue?

And as for reference, I have been able to get the RMC-1 connected via HDMI on at least 8 devices.

Nvidia Shield
Oppo 203
Surface Pro
Surface Pro 2
Desktop HTPC
MSI laptop
Acer Laptop
Playstation 4

So... take that for what you will.

 

[markus]

I already told him how to check for that in post 79.

but he wants to ignore it.

also he keeps saying it is not a setup issue but yet cant get HDMI to work....

Seriously...

What would you call that? A non setup issue?

And as for reference, I have been able to get the RMC-1 connected via HDMI on at least 8 devices.

Nvidia Shield
Oppo 203
Surface Pro
Surface Pro 2
Desktop HTPC
MSI laptop
Acer Laptop
Playstation 4

So... take that for what you will.

It is my understanding the attempted HDMI connection was between the AP analyzer and the RMC.
Did he still have the device when you posted?

 

[SOWK]

It is my understanding the attempted HDMI connection was between the AP analyzer and the RMC.
Did he still have the device when you posted?

I asked that question in post 79.

But as mentioned, he is choosing to ignore the post.

If he doesn’t have the unit anymore. So be it.
But he is adamant that it isn’t or cant not be a setup issue. But yet can’t get HDMI working....

So...

But anyway. Most of this is to blame on Emotiva anyhow for such a buggy processor.

I just want to make sure the unit was acting as it should have before the measurements where made.
If he still has the unit and follows my steps in post 79, gets the same results... then all of this is truly on Emotiva.

 

[digicidal]

Is that actually AUDIBLE above? For that matter, are ANY of the things Amirm makes mountains out of actually audible with the intended signals and output levels meant for this device or the AV7500 Marantz review I just read, etc.? I sure as heck can't hear 24kHz, for example nor can my speakers reproduce 24kHz. So why would I CARE from a consumer standpoint?

As the owner of a new Supra I take offense to those BMW comments... but I won't bother to argue on the "status symbol" aspect - just to point out that there is a reason for it... and it isn't the price. The part I would argue on (in reference to the above) is - if you aren't racing, why do you care if a car has a measured specification beyond what you drive on the way to the store?

It's because a) not everyone drives as slow as you do and b) because the same general measurements are made across all cars - so you can have a relative sense of performance characteristics without having to drive every single one of them. The measurements of the RMC-1, sadly aren't even ready for this kind of analogy however. In light of what was measured here, it's more like you're saying: "sure it has a few oil leaks, but it's unlikely you'll run it dry before your next change... and you can just top it off every few weeks - so who cares?!?"

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.

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! 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?!?

 

[markus]

I asked that question in post 79.

But as mentioned, he is choosing to ignore the post.

If he doesn’t have the unit anymore. So be it.
But he is adamant that it isn’t or cant not be a setup issue. But yet can’t get HDMI working....

So...

@amirm ?

 

[Koeitje]

Since Amirm bothered to reply, I'll give one last response here.



In other words, you're agreeing it's probably not audible under normal circumstances (let alone "objectionable"). Yet you don't merit the AVR in question on its features (beyond having buggy software), but only measured stats that are unlikely to be noticed by anyone in any listening use whatsoever. So what's the value in the measurements if they can't be heard? You like products designed for dog hearing?

Someone can engineer the a really really great shovel (far better performing pocket DAC), but if a mere average made jack hammer (Emotiva AVR with 16-channel Atmos and room correction, etc.) works functionally far better for moving dirt in every practical circumstance, what difference does it make if the shovel is "perfect" even? Yes, the measurements could be better, but apparently they're not worse than a typical D&M product and on Home Theater forums, those products aren't just popular, the Denon 8500 is king of the hill except for the Trinnov Altitude 32. I don't know what the Trinnov measures, but I'm pretty sure people laying down 30 Grand for one aren't buying it for the DAC section's measurements beyond the hearing range. They're buying it for 34-channel Atmos support, room correction, etc. DTS:X Pro support was just added for free (32.2 speaker support for everything upmixed with Neural X).



If you listen to sound (I don't know care what kind) at a level where your ears can actually hear 116dB of dynamic range in a REAL ROOM, congratulations, you are now DEAF! Seriously. You'd need well over 120dB in any kind of normal room and that's like listening to a Space Shuttle like rocket taking off nearby without any hearing protection! Your "ideal" case is insanity in actual usage. Sorry. That's PRECISELY why I don't take your reviews seriously. Anyone can learn to measure and interpret the meaning. It takes WISDOM to know what is actually important for real world listening and what is absolute FLUFF. You've clearly chosen fluff when it comes to "not recommending" something based on theoretical performance rather than actual audible sound and more importantly for home theater, FEATURES. Emotiva has 16-channel decoding. No one buys a Denon 8500 because they think it's better made than a Denon 4500 or a Marantz 7013. They buy it because they want 13.2-channels instead 11.2.



And NO ONE will hear it! Average QUIET room noise level 55-65db! Average playback volume for movies in home theaters (max peak), 85db! Max I play it at 105dB. Can I hear that noise floor above the room noise floor while things are making explosions at 105dB? You're kidding me, right???



I get it. I'm an EET myself. But I learned a long time ago what OVER ENGINEERING a product means. It means $$$$ lost. Time is money. I jus need an industrial piece of equipment to do what it's designed to do (e.g. separate parts with little or no human intervention). Do I need 99% or 99.2% if the latter costs another $25 million to achieve, but only save $15 million over the lifespan of the device when all is said and done? You want to compare the Emotiva to a pocket DAC. A pocket DAC doesn't do what the Emotiva does. If I could play 15.2 channel Dolby Atmos on that pocket DAC, I'd agree with you. Buy the better engineered product (at a fraction of the cost!) But you're comparing Apples and Oranges. You're thinking DAC section and I'm saying the Emotiva is a HELL of a lot more than just the DAC section. I've seen audiophiles pay THOUSANDS on high-end DACs over the years and I bet not a single one actually heard (in a double blind test) what they think they did.

Guess? That's what double blind testing is for. Things like AAC compression were built around double blind testing. It's just as scientific as any measurement gear and more closely related to what a human can actually hear than what some device can measure.



Premium parts sell well in ads. Measurements that you cannot hear and probably will never see don't. Could they have shaved $1000 off the price using cheaper parts? Sure. But you've got Stereophile types that won't buy it, then (not based on the sound, but based on whatever John Atkinson's replacement tells them what to think...not about the AVR, of course. It's unlikely they will review it. But they do like to talk about PARTS when I read the magazine.

You see you think like an engineer that wants to build the best possible product. I think like an engineer that wants the best possible experience and that means ignoring things that DON'T MATTER (aka INAUDIBLE at any SANE volume). Should this product do better? Probably. I don't know who worked on it or what they know. The software thing is the real bugaboo that would keep me far away.

The thing is BMWs are status symbols. They aren't necessarily better made cars. Emotiva has become a status symbol compared to D&M and other mass market brands. But if money were no object, I'd be buying a Trinnov Altitude 32. Of course, I'd also live in a nicer house and own more than one car. I don't need to read a measurement review of the Trinnov. I already know it does everything all the other processors out there CANNOT do. Its DAC section doesn't worry me in the slightest (and I have not worried about DACs since the late 1980s in general). I simply don't listen loud enough to hear the noise floor nor do frequency response improvements of 0.4dB or whatever impress me in the slightest when the average loudspeaker (high end or not) is +/- 3dB on average (before the room). I buy PSBs for home theater (I have Carver Ribbons in my music only room) because they are +/- 1.5dB. That at least gives my room a fighting chance with treatments and/or correction. But those are numbers that are plainly audible in a room. If the difference were 0.3db better than another set of speakers, I wouldn't worry about it. The room would obliterate the results anyway.

High end speakers don't sell based on their frequency response graphs. Stereophile magazine can plot waterfall plots and impulse response all day long and most of their readership doesn't even know what they're looking at, let alone have REW set up on their notebook to do it themselves. Most are lucky these days to hear a speaker in a bad room at a trade show as the boutique local market dried up long ago. Most people buy on recommendation these days. And I'm saying I want a recommendation based on things I can actually hear and things the device can actually do, not what the DAC section could do that I can't hear anyway.

Lots of talk to say that it is okay to ask $4000 for this. If you position your product as being high performance and high end you better have the numbers to prove it. This machine is putting out the same performance as $1000 AVR's that also throw in 11 channels of amplification for the price.

You clearly determine if something is a luxury product based on price, not on actual performance or feature set.

BMW is not a status symbol, you would know that if you have ever owned or driven one. BMW doesn't have great price/performance, but it provides performance. Emotiva has the price of a luxury product, but not the performance.

 

[Costas EAR]

It absolutely is not. That is an Internet myth. Read my full published article on that here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/dynamic-range-how-quiet-is-quiet.14/

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).

Well, this is a solid starting point to try to determine the maximum possible dynamic range in a typical room for high fidelity music reproduction.

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.

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.

Keep in mind, that if you are listening to high levels, the ear has a mechanism of lowering it's sensitivity to adjust at these high levels, and the threshold is raised for a short period, which means that although you may hear a tone at 20 dB's in mid frequencies when your ears are adjusted in a quiet room for enough time, if you listen to music at 100 dB's for more than a minute, then for a 2-5 minutes period you hear absolutely nothing at 20 dB's.

I assume that you can all agree that the maximum possible dynamic range for human hearing, in a quiet room, is frequency depended and it is in the range of 65-80 dB's, and maybe, a little more, just in theory...

I suppose that a dynamic range of 70 dB is a perfect goal for a sound system, and also quite difficult to reach, because your speakers must be able to reach almost 125 dB's at 20 Hz... (The 90 phon curve).

In a real life example, you stated that you were surprised how quickly the enormous lp surface noise disappeared when the music started, at your test of musical fidelity phono stage. The dynamic range of that recording, could not be more that 35 dB's, the sinad and dynamic range of the phono stage is there to see, and i suppose that you were not listening at 125 dB's...

Anyway, i think that you may have to change the maximum possible dynamic range for human hearing at music reproduction, at about 70-80 dB's, and anyway, even in theory, never over 90 dB's.
115? I really don't think so.

 

[digicidal]

Well, this is a solid starting point to try to determine the maximum possible dynamic range in a typical room for high fidelity music reproduction.
...
Anyway, i think that you may have to change the maximum possible dynamic range for human hearing at music reproduction, at about 70-80 dB's, and anyway, even in theory, never over 90 dB's.
115? I really don't think so.

I'm fine with that, but that's somewhat immaterial as far as the measurements go IMO. I don't listen to my speakers in an anechoic chamber either - but I would like them measured in one (or at least a simulated one). To me the most important value in the majority of the tests @amirm performs isn't what is audible per se, but rather to what degree they differ from published specifications. In this particular case there aren't any for the final product... but there are for the primary component in the only signal path he tested - and this misses the mark by a pretty large margin (even if most of what's missed is lost in the noise floor of the average room).

When the same component DAC is tested in other implementations the results are usually much closer to the specification, so the question with this DUT is why it isn't. Considering the other issues - and missing features - one can only imagine what might be exposed from testing of video fidelity as well. However, since this isn't AVSR or HTSR... I'll give Amir a pass on that omission. The bigger question (to me at least) is what justification was there in selecting (and forcing consumers to pay for) a higher cost BOM on a product that could be just as performant with a 10 year old Cirrus Logic DAC? A meaningless bullet point?