Review and Measurements of Emotiva XMC-1 Gen 2 Pre/Pro

[GrimSurfer]

That is up to the end user to decide if the performance meets their needs. When I talk to customers I try to find out what it is they are looking for and help them find what works best. For a large percentage of our customers, the performance of our AVP is more then sufficient and at the same time a much smaller percentage like to use a dedicated 2 channel pre-amp. I just depends on what you are looking for.

Ok. Then comparing multichannel to 2 channel will help people make the best informed decision, based on the percentage of their personal time divided between movies and music.

Next question: How do your customers determine that Emotiva AVPs are more than sufficient?

 

[openvista]

Good question, @GrimSurfer. Say what you will about Yamaha AVRs, their specs are all published on their website & in the manuals. Fairly exhaustive specs too, including residual noise at the binding posts. In fact, comparing those numbers to Amir's review, I found them to be a bit on the conservative side!

About a month ago or so, I was in the market for a Pre/Pro. I went to Emotiva's site and saw that many of their current offerings have nothing in the way of actual specs. That was a complete turn off for me. So I looked elsewhere.

 

[Lonnie]

Ok. Then comparing multichannel to 2 channel will help people make the best informed decision, based on the percentage of their personal time divided between movies and music.

Next question: How do your customers determine that Emotiva AVPs are more than sufficient?

Usually with their ears.

 

[GrimSurfer]

Usually with their ears.

That's what I thought your answer would be.

So the interests of largely untrained listeners, in uncontrolled spaces, listening to various sounds through various speakers, would somehow be compromised by access to objective data showing the relative performance of amps and AVRs together?

If that's what you're saying, it doesn't surprise me that you're saying it with a smile on your face.

Your industry isn't screwed up. It knows what it's doing, placing its interests so far above everything else that it has become rather untrustworthy.

 

[Lac013]

That's what I thought your answer would be.

So the interests of largely untrained listeners, in uncontrolled spaces, listening to various sounds through various speakers, would somehow be compromised by access to o jective data showing the relative performance of amps and AVRs together?

If that's what you're saying, it doesn't surprise me that you're saying it with a smile on your face.

No wonder this industry is so screwed up.

That's a bit harsh. He's here taking his time to speak to us. I don't see how this is helpful

 

[Dimifoot]

comparing multichannel to 2 channel will help people make the best informed decision, based on the percentage of their personal time divided between movies and music.

There is a growing number of us who prefer listening to multichannel music, and upmixed stereo to multichannel music.
In fact, I almost never listen to “2 channels only” reproduction anymore.

I would never consider buying audio equipment with 2 channels only.

 

[GrimSurfer]

That's a bit harsh. He's here taking his time to speak to us. I don't see how this is helpful

1. I didn't say he was screwed up.

2. Don't you see the faulty logic in any of this?

3. I appreciate Lonnie's presence but have good cause to believe his recommendation wrt how AVR data is portrayed to be either tainted by spotty logic or unduly influenced by business interests.

4. I do appreciate his candid response though.

 

[GrimSurfer]

There is a growing number of us who prefer listening to multichannel music, and upmixed stereo to multichannel music.
In fact, I almost never listen to “2 channels only” reproduction anymore.

How good is that multi channel is it, really? The power ratings for most AVRs are dubious, at best. The resolutions of the DAC, preamp, and amp stages are relatively poor. And don't get me started on the material itself.

Don't get me wrong, I think the future is multichannel music. But we're not going to get there in anything but a quantitative sense until the industry starts pulling up its socks and designing multi channel systems with high fidelity sound in mind.

At the moment, they appear to be "mailing it in". While laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[Dimifoot]

The resolutions of the DAC, preamp, and amp stages are relatively poor.

Well, they definitely measure better than any 2 channel dac if you compare the Sinad at the center channel and the surrounds.

The 2 channel dac gets a zero there

 

[Lac013]

Rich b and donh56 I believe have units from them and are both very knowledgeable and happy customers. Both, I believe are getting newer units from them. From what I can tell they both love hi Fidelity and are happy. Your comments again are very misleading. Plenty of good avrs that have amazing technology and measurements

 

[GrimSurfer]

Well, they definitely measure better than any 2 channel dac if you compare the Sinad at the center channel and the surrounds.

The 2 channel dac gets a zero there

This statement suggests you put the number of channels ahead of the fidelity of the sound.

 

[GrimSurfer]

Rich b and solderdude I believe have units from them and are both very knowledgeable and happy customers. Both, I believe are getting newer units from them. From what I can tell they both love hi Fidelity and are happy. Your comments again are very misleading. Plenty of good avrs that have amazing technology and measurements

Happiness is subjective. The measurements are objective. I'll leave it to you to determine which is the more reliable.

 

[Lac013]

 

[GrimSurfer]

View attachment 35705

Now let's see the graphic showing where each of the AVRs sit relative to the amps and DACs tested by Amir...

Yeah, neither you nor an industry rep want to see that one!

But I am glad you're happy. It's important to be happy in life.

 

[Dimifoot]

This statement suggests you put the number of channels ahead of the fidelity of the sound.

The fidelity of the sound depends a lot on the number of the channels reproducing it.

 

[GrimSurfer]

The fidelity of the sound depends a lot on the number of the channels reproducing it.

I think you might be confusing the fidelity of the sound with the perceived authenticity of the experience.

 

[Lac013]

This was in 2015 and sinad is in the middle of the chart of everything plus dirac for room correction. To quote most members here, Room Correction can have the largest impact of your sound. This is far from "mail in" as you said earlier. Instead of going back and forth and before you get another ban, lets have respect for people that offer products like this one. Its far better than the level of performance you seem be talking about from a company who has one of the largest customer satisfaction and prices that a far from others on that list. Plus measure best in sinad compared to any other AVR!

 

[Dimifoot]

I think you might be confusing the fidelity of the sound with the perceived authenticity of the experience.

If the file is two channel only you are correct.
If there is a multichannel version available, not so.

 

[DonH56]

I think electronics have generally advanced to where distortion is inaudible. Given a choice, sure I would pick the 120 dB SINAD over the 90 dB SINAD device, but in the real world either is plenty good enough for me. (OK, I'd probably skip the 53 dB NAD...) The on-going DAC SINAD race strikes me as akin to the amplifier power (Watt) wars and "ultra-low" distortion (then striving for maybe 0.001%, -50 dB in power) wars of years gone by. The XMC-1's performance does not match the stand-alone DACs, and I'd love for that to change, but in practice it has features and performance more than good enough for me. The usual rebuttal is my ears/system/taste in music/etc. is not good enough. So be it; it's my choice.

 

[GrimSurfer]

If the file is two channel only you are correct.
If there is a multichannel version available, not so.

I think you're missing my point.

Fidelity is all about the accuracy of the sound, relative to the recording. It is entirely possible for multi channel playback of a recording to be of lower fidelity than mono, and vice versa.

Provided the fidelity is excellent, authenticity of the experience can be better portrayed by multi channel systems. This is dependent on, among other things, the channel separation and loudspeaker placement. But multi channel has a definite advantage.