Originally Posted by MUDCAT45
Originally Posted by kbarnes701
How did you assess this, Mud? Objectively I mean, so we can attach significance to the results.
I knew this was coming.
I do not have objective measurements. As with Audyssey, they are not the last word in good sound.
I do not recall making any statements that Audyssey or any RC is not measurable. What I have stated is that I do not prefer those alterations to the sound. After running RC, measuring, tweaking. etc. it comes down to subjective opinion of what sounds good.
I have owned the Denon 4310 and 4311 among others. I have owned the UMC-1 and UMC-200. Even if I liked the end result of the eq performed by RC there are things that it does not do. I have not read of any measurements that show how well the sound is steered around the room. I can't use descriptive words like some do so I will give my thoughts as best I can. The Emotivas have a more enveloping sound with movies. You do not always feel that sound is either in front or rear or left or right when you know that you should feel as if you are in the center of the sound. Overall there is more naturalness to the sound (2 channel included). IMO the Denons are more sterile, clinical or whatever.
When you try both units please advise which you prefer.
I wasn't asking you which you preferred or which, in your opinion, is the better unit or even which, in your opinion, gives the better sound quality. I was asking you how you objectively assessed any differences which you hear. You have answered: you do not objectively assess any differences you hear.
As such, all we have is your opinion, which is valuable to you but not all that valuable to anyone else since we cannot hear with your ears.
The aim of objective assessment of differences between units is that it removes opinion and it removes the impossible requirement of us all hearing with your ears. The only true test of whether the UMC-200 produces 'better sound quality' than a Denon 4311 is first to assess whether any differences in sound can be heard between the two units. Now in the case of processors it is likely that differences will be heard because of all the, well, processing, they do. We can turn all that stuff off, but it seems pointless - why would one turn off Audyssey if that is the reason one bought an Audyssey-equipped unit, for example?
But at least you did preface your remarks with "IMO" which is not always the case on these forums, where opinion is often presented as fact.
One of the major benefits of any modern AVR is the room correction it offers. RC is required if the room is untreated acoustically for all the reasons we already know and which have been discussed at length in this and other threads. Now fortunately, we can measure the effects of RC. So what would be needed for us to evaluate which of two units - one with XT32 and another with something else, eg Emo-Q - was delivering the flattest frequency response is a simple measurement of the room before and after, using both of the RC systems. It would be fairly easy then to see which one did a better job. That is the sort of thing I was asking you about - did you do an evaluation like this, which then led you to conclude that the UMC-200 + amps was delivering 'better SQ' than a Denon 4311?
If I may remind you what you said, it was: "I have owned the 4311 and now the UMC-200. IMO the UMC wins hands down for sound quality. The new version of EmoQ gave better sound than Audyssey for me." Without some sort of objective evaluation of Emo-Q and XT32, I am struggling to understand why we should attach much significance to your opinion. As I say, a person's opinion is very valuable to the person holding it, but in the absence of some sort of objectivity, is it of as much use to everyone else?
I admit that I have not seen an objective comparison of the two RC systems either, but then I am not the one saying that one is better than another wrt to sound quality. All I said is that I personally would not want to lose XT32 for the alleged benefits of the UMC-200. My remarks were based on Emo's terrible reputation with processors, gained from the disastrous UMC-1 which even Emotiva admitted was badly flawed in numerous respects. For balance, I did also say that I believe the UMC-200 is a better unit than the UMC-1, but then, it could hardly be worse could it? ;)
In the end, you did at least say that your judgement was your opinion and not a matter of acknowledged fact, and that alone puts you in front of many AVS members who constantly present opinion as if it were just another sort of fact.
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45
I have not read of any measurements that show how well the sound is steered around the room. I can't use descriptive words like some do so I will give my thoughts as best I can. The Emotivas have a more enveloping sound with movies. You do not always feel that sound is either in front or rear or left or right when you know that you should feel as if you are in the center of the sound.
i think you are discussing what we generally refer to as imaging - how well the system presents the spatial coherence of sounds, using the number of channels it has available. (We can assume, I think, that all half-decent modern AVRs can steer the sounds to the appropriate speakers). Imaging is a function of the reflectiveness of the room. If the room has numerous untamed reflections, then imaging will be 'confused' as sound arrives at different places at different times after being bounced around the room. It is relatively easy to measure the reflectiveness of a room, using an ETC measurement and from this it is easy enough to deduce what the imaging quality will be. Unfortunately, as electronic EQ isn't effective in the time domain (other than small benefits arising as a result of improvements made in the frequency domain), then neither Emo-Q or XT32 are going to make much impact in this regard, so why you would purport that the Emo can do this better than the Denon, I don't know. The only real way to control the time domain issues is with room treatments.