Emotiva XMC-1 Pre/Pro - Page 37 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
 
Thread Tools
post #1081 of 1235 Old 04-25-2014, 10:41 AM
Advanced Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 997
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Liked: 61
I don't think that there is much if anything factual in dispute.

When you hear something that sounds different or share personal impressions, it can be frustrating to have people who weren't in the room tell you what you didn't hear. It can be insulting and pick pointless fights, and thing go downhill from there.

Something more along the lines of "Are you sure about that? I'm skeptical. Could you post measurements to support that?" would be much less presumptuous. That wouldn't be assuming that the OP is wrong - just starting a discussion free from insults or accusations.

BTW, KBarnes, thank you for all the effort you put into those Audyssey FAQs. I found them extremely helpful.
rcohen is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1082 of 1235 Old 04-25-2014, 10:58 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 17,350
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1066 Post(s)
Liked: 1518
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post

I don't think that there is much if anything factual in dispute.

When you hear something that sounds different or share personal impressions, it can be frustrating to have people who weren't in the room tell you what you didn't hear. It can be insulting and pick pointless fights, and thing go downhill from there.

 

I still think we are at cross purposes. There is no doubt that people genuinely hear differences. I have no reason to believe anyone would deliberately lie about what they hear. I am sure they hear what they say they hear.

 

The point is that the flawed way in which they conduct the evaluations means that nobody can come to the reliable conclusion about the differences they hear. The differences could be because they are real differences or the differences could be simply the result of the flawed way the test has been conducted. 

 

For example, there is no doubt at all that people routinely prefer content that is played louder - so if someone is comparing, say, two amps, and one is playing louder than the other, then the louder amp will be preferred and people will say they believe it 'sounds better' than the other amp. This happens even when the difference in loudness is not even consciously perceptible and it has been shown that a difference of just ±0.5dB is enough to invalidate the test result. So when people conduct these subjective tests, in improperly controlled conditions, the results they come up with a simply of zero value. They will swear that they, their wife, their GF (could be awkward if the wife finds out), their cat, their neighbor, their dog etc can all hear the 'difference' and can all hear that amp A 'sounds better' than amp B. And for their flawed test, it does!  But if the test is repeated under proper conditions, then they will not reliably be able to distinguish between amp A and amp B (usual caveats apply here).

 

Does this make it more clear why I dismiss these sighted, subjective evaluations as meaningless?  I am not doubting the sincerity of the people who put forward their subjective opinions - but you can see from the above example that nothing of value can be determined from their 'test'  - often conducted using different content and days apart (which also negate the results). When they swear that A is better than B, it means nothing at all to anyone other than the person doing the swearing.

 

EDITED TO ADD:

 

Incidentally, magazines are full of subjective reviews, conducted in who-knows-what conditions, maybe level matched with the required degree of precision or maybe not, with different content being compared hours, sometimes days, apart, usually sighted (thus coming inescapably into bias issues, regardless of what golden-eared subjectivists will say) and I find it all very distasteful TBH. There must be thousands of people who have taken these worthless reviews at face value and gone out and wasted lord knows how much of their money in swapping perfectly good components for other perfectly good components, and then having to buy into the whole subjective, sighted schtick to convince themselves that they really haven't wasted their money and that really can hear that 'better imaging, better separation, smoother highs, deeper lows, and velvet-black spaces between notes (that last was actually in an article I read some years ago). Not a measurement in sight and readers are conned into believing that the golden-eared reviewer actually does have some sort of 'golden ear' and that his subjective opinion must therefore mean something. The truth: it doesn't. I myself wasted tens of thousands of dollars in the past by following this claptrap and buying into it - never achieving satisfaction, always believing that the next upgrade would be the one... and then I wised up. I taught myself the science and how to distinguish claptrap from meaningful differences and as a result I now have the very best sound (and picture) I have ever had and not a penny of my money has been wasted.

 

There are many things that make a big difference to SQ. The room, the speakers, the subs, the optimisation of speaker and sub placement, acoustic treatments and so on. And learning to use REW and buying and reading good books such as Toole's. I commend them all to everyone... as much as I try to deter them from being taken in by claptrap.

 

Quote:

 BTW, KBarnes, thank you for all the effort you put into those Audyssey FAQs. I found them extremely helpful.

 

Thank you. It is always appreciated when someone takes the time to express their thanks like that.

XStanleyX likes this.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1083 of 1235 Old 04-25-2014, 11:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 17,350
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1066 Post(s)
Liked: 1518
Quote:
Originally Posted by petew View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I can’t see the part about 'target curves' in the above. It just says that they have not finalised the details of the implementation.  In fact, it seems to me from the above that they were indeed discussing which functional elements could be left in or left out: (We're going to make sure that the version of Dirac you get in the XMC-1 does everything it needs to; they want to make sure there are at least a few reasons left why you might want to upgrade to the $900 "premium version".)  The reasons to upgrade would be to get the features originally left out of the XMC-1 wouldn't they?

I think it curves were mentioned in another post or possible another thread. A quick search found the comment I posted above. I thought other readers of this tedious thread may find it useful.


No problem. Hopefully, we will soon know for sure what their version of Dirac does or doesn't include.

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1084 of 1235 Old 04-25-2014, 11:52 AM
Advanced Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 997
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Thank you. It is always appreciated when someone takes the time to express their thanks like that.
The quality, quantity, and organization of all that information is just awesome.

Back to our ears, I strongly disagree that what we subjectively hear is worthless. It should be the starting point and the ending goal. If we believe we hear something awful or something wonderful, it's not time to draw conclusions, but it's absolutely worth discussing and investigating, to strive for understanding. And, the end goal of all the obsessive measurements, finding better measurements, buying stuff, tweaking target curves, etc. should be to make it sound better.

So, I'm not detracting anything from the importance of the middle step of measuring, and not suggesting that it should be skipped. I'm just saying that that the first and last step of listening have value, too.

It's a shame that listening is so unreliable. It's very true. It's still worth doing and talking about.
stustan likes this.
rcohen is online now  
post #1085 of 1235 Old 04-25-2014, 12:11 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 17,350
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1066 Post(s)
Liked: 1518
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Thank you. It is always appreciated when someone takes the time to express their thanks like that.
The quality, quantity, and organization of all that information is just awesome.

Back to our ears, I strongly disagree that what we subjectively hear is worthless. It should be the starting point and the ending goal. If we believe we hear something awful or something wonderful, it's not time to draw conclusions, but it's absolutely worth discussing and investigating, to strive for understanding. And, the end goal of all the obsessive measurements, finding better measurements, buying stuff, tweaking target curves, etc. should be to make it sound better.

So, I'm not detracting anything from the importance of the middle step of measuring, and not suggesting that it should be skipped. I'm just saying that that the first and last step of listening have value, too.

It's a shame that listening is so unreliable. It's very true. It's still worth doing and talking about.


It isn’t worthless to the person doing the listening - just to anyone else. I agree that the objective of measuring is to make the listening experience better - listening is the point, not measuring. Measuring devices are just tools, they are not the finished product. A master craftsman can make a beautiful table whose qualities will endure for centuries. He will use ordinary tools to do it. The tools are the means to the end, not the end in themselves.  But when two units measure the same, or the same within the human range of audibility, and people then claim to hear differences, well, they're away with the fairies unfortunately.

 

It is useful to discuss these things in a polite and adult way, as you are, I agree. BTW, I edited that post you refer to to add a new paragraph which explains why I am always keen to try to intervene if I think purely subjective opinions are liable to make people waste their money.

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1086 of 1235 Old 04-25-2014, 12:25 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
sdrucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post

The quality, quantity, and organization of all that information is just awesome.

Back to our ears, I strongly disagree that what we subjectively hear is worthless. It should be the starting point and the ending goal. If we believe we hear something awful or something wonderful, it's not time to draw conclusions, but it's absolutely worth discussing and investigating, to strive for understanding. And, the end goal of all the obsessive measurements, finding better measurements, buying stuff, tweaking target curves, etc. should be to make it sound better.

So, I'm not detracting anything from the importance of the middle step of measuring, and not suggesting that it should be skipped. I'm just saying that that the first and last step of listening have value, too.

It's a shame that listening is so unreliable. It's very true. It's still worth doing and talking about.

LOL...why are we here? tongue.gif

I'm about to do a speaker swap because, even though I "think" that my current DefTech speakers sounded good with Audyssey XT32 or DSP Trinnov, the REW plots convinced me that there's a flaw in the way the speaker work with bullt-in subs that compromises my upper-bass and lower midrange, in competition with seeking smoother response from the mid to upper bass and crossover regions (distance tweaks taken into account). But you wouldn't consider that a flaw unless you had specific standards you looked for in a comparative goal (for me, it was bass decay < 450 ms with L/R+Sub waterfalls and smooth FR response of each main with subs). That may sound obsessive, but not simply trusting your ears is how we grow in this hobby. it's the difference between being just a listener and treating A/V as science, IMO.

Carried to an extreme, there's no point in checking out speakers at a dealer, or comparing speakers at an A/V show, since there's no objective way to determine whether the speakers actually are producing qualities that you think they've got. The only way to objectively compare speakers is to do an in-home demo under double blind testing, identical ear height, placement, and 0.5 db level match. Then could do REW or OmniMic measurements and compare deltas (EQ to no REQ) at a speaker level between REQ methodologies, and try to draw tentative conclusions. IOW you've got to be a methodologist to get it right smile.gif.

I actually started to go that route with XT32 and the R-972 version of Trinnov, and gave it up because there were so many variables I wanted to control with my calibrations (especially comparative crossovers and gain structure) that I decided that any conclusion I came up with wasn't going to last beyond my next calibration.

So....where does this leave us? IDK....but I'd still like to see rcohen's Dirac vs. no Dirac plots to draw some "objective" conclusions. Even a simplistic comparison of EQ to no EQ for ONE REQ is better than simply trusting the last thing we heard, or what we hear with time delays and level issues. If he can put this up here or (my preference) the Dirac Live thread on the $20K+ forum (since his version of Dirac Llive may or may not match what the DSP version in the Emotiva XMC-1 may include in the algorithm), he'd be a trailblazer. AFAIK nobody has done Dirac vs. no Dirac, and compared to XT32 vs. no XT32 frequency response plots, with independent measurement. There was one guy on the Emotiva forum that generated a plot, but his methodology was flawed by presenting an average of L and R speaker measurements, which is NOT best practice due to comb filtering issues in upper frequencies.

As for why I differentiate the PC version of Dirac RCS from what Emotiva may include in the DSP algorithm, I'll point out that Trinnov faced similar issues, in comparing the pro unit (Trinnov Optimizer 2.0 at the time, with a dedicated CPU-based processor) to what became the DSP version in the Sherwood R-972. The Sherwood R-972 version assumed fixed parameters on number of IIR and FIR filters, resolution of trying to capture energy from early reflections, the degree of boost/cut, and IIRC resolution of the correction (closer to 1/2 octave than flexible options in the pro units). As a result, one can't assume that what the "full" version shows is what an XMC version of Dirac will have, unless proven otherwise. What we really need, and will need if live XMC-1s hit the field, is comparative measurements to understand just want Dirac in the Emotiva brings to the table compared to other REQs....
kbarnes701 likes this.

Stuart

 

Denon 4311 with XT32 and Audyssey Pro

Oppo 93 and 103

Panasonic VT50

Sherwood R-972 with its version of the Trinnov Optimizer

MiniDSP 10x10 HD

PSB Imagine T2, Center, and Surrounds (as of 5/2014); HSU ULS-15 subs (2)

 

The Audyssey FAQ Guide can be found here:

http://www.avsforum.com/...

sdrucker is online now  
post #1087 of 1235 Old 04-25-2014, 12:48 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,279
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 674 Post(s)
Liked: 1142
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Two words: Sighted Evaluation.

You apparently wanted to hear a difference and an improvement, and dad gum by doing an evaluation that is open to a world of irrelevant influences, you did!

Enjoy.
Really? Are you suggesting that DSP algorithms that change the signal don't change the sound?

I was saying that the biggest benefit was the difference between a 20 minute iteration vs a 1-2 minute iteration, and you're suggesting that's just my over-active imagination at work?

What you actually said was as follows:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post

I spent last weekend experimenting with Dirac Live demo for PC. I also have an Audyssey Pro XT32 setup.

I really liked the results with Dirac. It sounded good (and measured good with REW). Unfortunately, I didn't take before measurements with XT32.

The clear advantage of Dirac was that the measurements, tweaking, and curve comparison was MUCH faster than with Audyssey Pro.
I was able to experiment with lots of subtle changes, and AB compare with a variety of music and video.
A 20 minute experiment with Audyssey Pro would take 1-2 minutes with Dirac, and Audyssey Pro doesn't allow AB comparisons.

Also, the UI is nicer, and it gives you much finer and more convenient control with target curves.

I can't say for sure whether the nice results were just due to the iteration speed and UI, the Dirac algorithm, or both.
I suspect both.

Specifically, the differences were:
1) Transients sounded tighter (treble and bass).
2) It removed a "tunnel" sound coming from my untreated room.
3) It gave me fine control over frequency balance to fit to my taste.
4) It removed some ambience, which is negative in some cases, but worth it overall.

Other notes:
1) I was using an EMC8000 mic I had on hand, and got terrible results, with 1 calibration file I found online, but good results with another. I have a UMIK-1 on order.
2) I got bad results before using a mic stand.
3) Dirac doesn't seem to interact well with Audyssey DSX. The combination sounded confusing and fatiguing.

I don't want to go back.
I'm not sure whether to go for the Dirac software or the XMC-1.
I wish there was a reasonably priced 11.2 channel Dirac option.

Now it appears that you want to abandon all of those flowery claims and replace them with this simple statement: "DSP algorithms that change(d) the signal change(d) the sound" (with no specific claims as to their sonic nature or whether they were beneficial or not) because that is the claim that you accuse me of challenging. In fact I was challenging the flowery claims but if you have already vacated them, then I really don't have a lot to say.

Are you in fact abandoning all of the flowery claims that I quoted above, yes or no?
arnyk is offline  
post #1088 of 1235 Old 04-25-2014, 12:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
hifiaudio2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Man there sure are a lot of arguments in this thread. I feel like setting up some sort of March Madness style bracket. Winner gets the first XMC-1. They are not allowed to see it, of course. biggrin.gif
realjetavenger likes this.
hifiaudio2 is offline  
post #1089 of 1235 Old 04-25-2014, 12:59 PM
Administrator
 
Mike Lang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 11,476
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 324 Post(s)
Liked: 309

Move on and stop polluting the thread for others to have to wade through.


Mike Lang
Administrator
Please use the report post button to alert staff to problematic posts. Never quote or respond to them yourself.
Join the AVS Club and help support the site. Help Support AVS Forum Sponsors.
Mike Lang is offline  
post #1090 of 1235 Old 04-25-2014, 01:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
smurraybhm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 1,574
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 105 Post(s)
Liked: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

Well according to Keith you can't have any impression of anything in this world due to sighted bias. So if you listened to any of your gear to compare something or to try something new, you better have done a blind A/B or your a moron talking out of your ass. Does that mean I was being reasonable the other day when I heard Justin Bieber playing on the radio and thought it was crap? I swear I couldn't see him so I wasn't positive it was him until I heard some other people saying it was. Had me scared for a minute that I was making a non-blind decision. I now hope that in the future AVS can allow me the opportunity to hide all profile names so that my now standing bias toward Keith won't influence my ability to take anything he says seriously.

With all respect - after reading all of this it may be hard for me to read one of your articles. Walk away, like the all amps sound the same discussion (putting it nicely) it is one that can neither be won nor lost.
smurraybhm is offline  
post #1091 of 1235 Old 04-25-2014, 02:37 PM
Senior Member
 
audio4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 88
Deleted after considering mod's suggestion.
audio4life is online now  
post #1092 of 1235 Old 04-25-2014, 04:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 363 Post(s)
Liked: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

So again, why would it be better? Don't forget that you were talking about a standard 5-speaker layout. Furthermore beds are a reality. They will be at the core of every Atmos mix.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

You mean this one? Too small of an audience smile.gif
In spite of the small audience, if anyone wants to continue to explore the implications of object audio, I will start over there by offering some ways that 5.1 systems could benefit.

Cheers! wink.gif

Direct link to the new post
kbarnes701 likes this.
Roger Dressler is offline  
post #1093 of 1235 Old 04-25-2014, 04:57 PM
Newbie
 
ernieboch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by smurraybhm View Post


With all respect - after reading all of this it may be hard for me to read one of your articles. Walk away, like the all amps sound the same discussion (putting it nicely) it is one that can neither be won nor lost.


Personally I'll now go out of my way to read Kris' articles.

Schwa likes this.
ernieboch is offline  
post #1094 of 1235 Old 04-25-2014, 04:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
petew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Albuquerque, NM USA
Posts: 2,051
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwt View Post

I appreciate your keen eye petew ; considering those 2 [ oulined on the pcb] blocks of 4 are separate digital and analog blocks would you say the 2 spare in the digital would equate to presumably more than 2 channels considering the three others cover 7.1 ? Feel free to speculate as it gives a hint at the rmc1 smile.gif

I wish I knew a bit more about linux to see how this all holds together but I understand it opens up possibilities for writing code cool.gif

The three digital power connections are feeding 1) The HDMI board, 2) The DSP main board, daughter card, and FM tuner module (by ribbon cable), and 3) The Linux board.
The one analog connector is powering the analog board at the bottom of the unit that has the DACs and ADCs, digital IO and analog IO jacks.

The front panel should be getting digital juice from somewhere - possibly the Linux board. That might make sense architecturally, since the front panel and Linux board must interact with each other extensively and may have some distributed processing between the two boards.

Adding channels wouldn't change the power and data distribution between subsystems at all, but a totally new analog board would be required.

High Desert Theater - work in progress
Building Bass - Subs

Surrounds - Easy as Pi

Storage - unRAID unDELL

petew is offline  
post #1095 of 1235 Old 04-25-2014, 05:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
smurraybhm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 1,574
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 105 Post(s)
Liked: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post


In spite of the small audience, if anyone wants to continue to explore the implications of object audio, I will start over there by offering some ways that 5.1 systems could benefit.

Cheers! wink.gif

Please do. Lord knows we've read about it a lot on this thread and others so please provide a link or discuss away. Thanks.
smurraybhm is offline  
post #1096 of 1235 Old 04-25-2014, 05:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 363 Post(s)
Liked: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by smurraybhm View Post

Please do. Lord knows we've read about it a lot on this thread and others so please provide a link or discuss away. Thanks.
The link was in my post, within Marcus' quote. But let me go one better with a direct link to the discussion.
Roger Dressler is offline  
post #1097 of 1235 Old 04-26-2014, 04:58 AM
cwt
AVS Special Member
 
cwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: nsw australia
Posts: 1,229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by petew View Post

The three digital power connections are feeding 1) The HDMI board, 2) The DSP main board, daughter card, and FM tuner module (by ribbon cable), and 3) The Linux board.
Thanks pete ; had it in my head a comment about the rmc1's supposed totally balanced multichannel passthrough [rather than the xmc1's 2ch balanced output ] and extrapolated that without considering powering the other pcb's rolleyes.gif
cwt is offline  
post #1098 of 1235 Old 04-26-2014, 08:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Milt99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Of California
Posts: 5,123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Thanks for the link Roger.
After doing some further reading on object based sound, it seems to be the logical next step.
While I'm sure that many with 5.1 systems could benefit from Atmos, from the scenarios you listed at this time mine would not.
I'll have to go on living without Atmos in my home.

 

It ain't ignorance causes so much trouble; it's folks knowing so much that ain't so

Milt99 is offline  
post #1099 of 1235 Old 04-26-2014, 09:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 441
Noticed this on the product website..

"The first Emotiva XMC-1s shipped in April 2014. More are due in May, with volume shipping in June."

Come on guys.. you have tip Thursday to get that one lucky customer his or her XMC....
FilmMixer is online now  
post #1100 of 1235 Old 04-26-2014, 11:31 AM
Advanced Member
 
Socketman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Probably shipped one to a relative. If it was my company , I would be making a big deal out of the first unit being shipped, say with a video or something. Maybe release a download copy of the manual for those interested. Surely the first person to get one is going to be a forum member and would be pissing himself while typing in the forum and bragging about his new XMC-1
Socketman is online now  
post #1101 of 1235 Old 04-26-2014, 12:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,756
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 146 Post(s)
Liked: 441
Me, I'd send the initial units to trusted reviewers and look to pepper the web with a slew of positive review. Why, I bet fols like Robinson, Guttenberg and others are working on the text already.
kbarnes701 likes this.

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is online now  
post #1102 of 1235 Old 04-26-2014, 12:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 441
You know I misread that.

It's past tense and states they already shipped.

No manual, no website updates except this one, no pics of manufacturing.... Too bad.
FilmMixer is online now  
post #1103 of 1235 Old 04-26-2014, 02:50 PM
Senior Member
 
audio4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

Me, I'd send the initial units to trusted reviewers and look to pepper the web with a slew of positive review. Why, I bet fols like Robinson, Guttenberg and others are working on the text already.

Yeppers, the propaganda machine is going to be going full bore.  Do nothing 'til you've heard from actual owners who have been running it in their systems for a month or so.

audio4life is online now  
post #1104 of 1235 Old 04-26-2014, 03:55 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
sdrucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio4life View Post

Yeppers, the propaganda machine is going to be going full bore.  Do nothing 'til you've heard from actual owners who have been running it in their systems for a month or so.

If/when there's an actual XMC-1 product that can get to reviewers, full court press PR is exactly what Emotiva needs to do, if I were them, and doggedly insisted on moving forward with this unit. A couple of decent to mildly glowing reviews in the press might carry them to the holiday season (at least to those immune to Atmos).

Stuart

 

Denon 4311 with XT32 and Audyssey Pro

Oppo 93 and 103

Panasonic VT50

Sherwood R-972 with its version of the Trinnov Optimizer

MiniDSP 10x10 HD

PSB Imagine T2, Center, and Surrounds (as of 5/2014); HSU ULS-15 subs (2)

 

The Audyssey FAQ Guide can be found here:

http://www.avsforum.com/...

sdrucker is online now  
post #1105 of 1235 Old 04-26-2014, 05:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MUDCAT45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Liked: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

You know I misread that.

It's past tense and states they already shipped.

No manual, no website updates except this one, no pics of manufacturing.... Too bad.

Maybe the manual has been the final hold up on shipping. smile.gifsmile.gif How many revisions do you suppose that manual has had since the first talk of the XMC ?
MUDCAT45 is offline  
post #1106 of 1235 Old 04-26-2014, 05:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MUDCAT45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Liked: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

Me, I'd send the initial units to trusted reviewers and look to pepper the web with a slew of positive review. Why, I bet fols like Robinson, Guttenberg and others are working on the text already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

If/when there's an actual XMC-1 product that can get to reviewers, full court press PR is exactly what Emotiva needs to do, if I were them, and doggedly insisted on moving forward with this unit. A couple of decent to mildly glowing reviews in the press might carry them to the holiday season (at least to those immune to Atmos).

If I really wanted the word to spread that the XMC has become a reality I would send the first one to Keith. He could easily write 10,000 words about it. The downfall is they would all be negative. smile.gif
MUDCAT45 is offline  
post #1107 of 1235 Old 04-26-2014, 06:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,756
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 146 Post(s)
Liked: 441
Yeah, KeithL from Emotiva would be a great person to review it. He could educate all of us about codecs and how Dolby works while dropping some DAC knowledge.
Bluescale likes this.

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is online now  
post #1108 of 1235 Old 04-26-2014, 06:13 PM
Senior Member
 
audio4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 88

Very true, I've noticed he likes the sound of his keyboard a lot.

audio4life is online now  
post #1109 of 1235 Old 04-26-2014, 06:20 PM
Advanced Member
 
PeterK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: The very wet, humid, muggy South !!
Posts: 544
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 50
When you mentioned Keith I thought you meant kbarnes101.
I have been following his posts for a long time and would love to read his thoughts.
Bet he could do a great job. Anyone who has seen his incredible efforts in the Audyssey thread will understand.
PeterK is offline  
post #1110 of 1235 Old 04-26-2014, 06:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,756
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 146 Post(s)
Liked: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio4life View Post

Very true, I've noticed he likes the sound of his keyboard a lot.
And he never paints himself into a corner.

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is online now  
Closed Thread Receivers, Amps, and Processors

Tags
Emotiva Xmc 1

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off