Dirac is still far from ready for mass market.

Owning an 8802A, I would strongly agree with that assessment. Last yr, I moved to a Trinnov Altitude 16 but that's a whole different level, room correction performance & price obviously. IF I were to stay at the <$5K level, the 8805 would hands down be my choice. I wouldn't even consider an RMC1 at this point, maybe 3 yrs from now

What I read on this thread, including the latest height vs top code issue is simply head-shaking unbelievable. That they can't provide an accurate description defining overhead speakers or even worse implemented it incorrectly is inexcusable after all that has been published by Dolby & DTS. Either way, they've lost credibility.

I own an XPA7 Gen 3 amp for my overheads. IMO, Emotiva is lucky they have amps to draw on for their business. And I'm not sure they are that trust-worthy on amps: reading that they use a reverse polarity XLR config? Why would they do that, it's the reverse of the accepted standard? I called them recently about XLR and the support guy I spoke with maintained pin 2 was hot, but I continue to read posters claiming it's reversed polarity. Which is correct? No other amp mfgs (all the big name ones & boutiques) I've looked into don't have this confusion. The pin-out/polarity is usually documented in their manual. If Emo can't be trusted to wire to the accepted standard or describe their amp correctly, why would one trust them on a complex prepro?

Amazing

I should have specified without REQ.

Agreed on all points. I am pulling for Emotiva and Monoprice.

I also moved to an A16 from the 8805. I have a good amount of experience with Dirac and Audyssey. I agree 100% that Dirac is better than Audyssey, however, I also agree that there is currently no Dirac capable processor at the sub $5000 price point that can touch the 8805 in functionality and reliability...and I think that’s by a wide margin right now! I think you have to jump to a Bryston SP4/Storm to find a reliable Dirac piece. Obviously we are talking completely different price points but maybe the problem the others have is they they are trying to produce a boutique piece at a price point that just can’t be done properly. It seems to fail badly time and time again. In my opinion the Trinnov optimizer is a completely different animal but, obviously it’s comes at a steep price!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Take REQ out of the equation, and all bets are off. Even during our blind testing of the $25,000 RS20i and the $2500 Marantz (PERFECTLY level matched to within 1/4dB), without REQ, REALLY tough to consistently pick the "high priced spread" - as long as bass management wasn't engaged. Then the RS20 still won.

That was asked in the Lounge, Lonnie’s response is below. I suppose you can fault their original decision, or you can fault their decision not to change, or you could say they made a difficult decision to remain compatible and loyal to their long time customers and those with a mix of new and old Emotiva amps. I do agree that the correct information should be readily available and known by everyone.

“Yes, you are correct and here is why. 15 years ago the first and second series of amps were wired to the EU standard which is now out of phase to the US standard. On many occasions we discussed changing this but decided not to because anyone who had older gear would run into problems. Better to keep things consistent especially since it doesn't matter as long as all the speakers are wired the same way.”

^^
The problem with that is the world has moved on past 7 ch. So people now need more than 1 amp for immersive audio. If you are using an amp from a different mfg and buy an Emotiva to use with it, you have half the speakers in phase and half out of phase. So you are forced to wire the corresponding speakers backwards to match the ones in phase. That's just a fubar'd way to do things.

They assume everyone is going to buy all their amps fresh and from them. Bad assumption and a poor business decision. Better to get on board with the rest of the world (D&M, etc) than to continue an outdated scheme. Plus, I believe the EU standard has been the same as the US for a long time so that doesn't hold up either.

Frankly, if I had known their amp was phase backwards, I wouldn't have bought it. I already had an ATI 527NC which is wired properly and a super amp. Another ATI was ~$3.5K while the XPA was $2K but in the end, which is the better deal. One that's backwards or one that is correct to mate with AVR's and prepros that everyone else makes. Leave it to Emotiva to do such a thing.

And there's no excuse for not documenting this on their website & manual. If you follow their excuse (or logic) to the end, why didn't they also wire the XMC and RMC out-of-phase for XLR?

Strange company, they march to their own drumbeat for sure.


PS - I see you are a fellow Maggie owner. Last yr I did my last speaker upgrade - replaced my 3.6's with 20.7's. I've been a Maggie owner since the early 80's

First, I did not understand their choice even many years ago, since as a U.S.-based company you'd expect they would've followed U.S. standards.

Second, in the real world I seriously doubt absolute phase matters to anyone. Throughout my years playing this game I have seen many, many components that invert absolute polarity. There's no standard for it AFAIK. Some tube amps would invert the 8-ohm tap and maintain absolute polarity through the 4-ohm taps, for instance. Except when impulse testing, you'd never know it. Transients have finite rise and fall, or more accurately attack and decay, times that last many cycles of the waveforms. Except in very controlled test conditions, including the test signals, it is virtually impossible to hear a polarity difference.

For multichannel, and for stereo plus sub systems, it is important to get all the speakers in-phase at the MLP. Fortunately that is done via room correction programs or measurements and ears, and makes the absolute polarity irrelevant. You have to align the delay/phase/time and any polarity inversion comes out in the wash. For that matter it may well help depending upon the distance and crossover frequency.

But of course knowing all this I still set up my system so absolute polarity is maintained, anal design engineer I am...

Was this statement released somewhere or are you still trying to agree things?

oh this is too good to pass up.....


I think they are trying but each time they place a call they are getting random audio drop outs.

While I wholeheartedly agree about the atmos ceiling speaker issue being a very big deal, as well as the audio drop out issues, I would never be able to go back to a Marantz 8805 after hearing the notable sonic difference with the RMC-1 in my theater space.

I am now using a Trinnov, and I still think the RMC-1 was doing something pretty darn incredible with how it handled bass. The RMC-1 convinced me that the quality of audio processors really do matter, and I had to pay substantially more for a Trinnov to get reliability, versatility, and trustworthy upgradability.

Did you self-install both? What can you share about RMC-1 bass management? I can't imagine the RMC-1 having more flexible bass management than Trinnov.

Hi Marc,

Yes, I did self-install both. I was utilizing Seaton Catalyst and Seaton Sparks, along with my 12 subs (8 Othorns and 4 Seaton Terraform D18's) at the time I had the Emotiva RMC-1. Since then, I have reoriented my subs in a different configuration with the Trinnov, and I am now utilizing JBL speakers.

Prior to getting the RMC-1, I had spent a considerable time dialing in the bass with the Marantz 8805, bypassing Audyssey and using a Behringer DCX2496. With input from Mark Seaton via phone and text, I time aligned 12 subs using the DCX2496, moving subs all over my theater space for optimal placement. After I found best position and I got things relatively close, Mark Seaton came over to my house to run Audyssey and essentially EQ the bass to fight what Audyssey tends to do to below 20 hz bass.

The RMC-1 came out, and I sold away the Marantz in order to upgrade to 9.1.6.

When I received the Emotiva RMC-1, I started out utilizing the same settings on the Behringer DCX2496 and initially set up the RMC-1 on my own. What I heard from the Emotiva after I set up the RMC-1 was something. To my ears, the Emotiva RMC-1 sounded better than a fully calibrated Marantz 8805 with Audyssey room correction.

After initially setting up the RMC-1, Mark Seaton did come over and fine tune things, further expanding on the work we had started with the Marantz. At the time of the calibration, there were firmware issues with the RMC-1, which prevented us from utilizing REW as intended. Since that time, I believe that issue has been resolved.

A lot has changed since I owned the Emotiva, including the speakers I am using, the sub layout, and how I manage bass. I have ceased utilizing the Behringer DCX2496, and I am managing the subs directly from the Trinnov. The Trinnov has an array of options for bass management, some of which I am still experimenting with.

I am essentially starting from square 1 with the Trinnov, so things aren't apples-to-apples. Even so, I was still impressed enough with the RMC-1 to bring me back to this thread, even after upgrading to the Trinnov.

@pennynike1 ...

Sounds like one well-of a theater you have bud...

Honest question. What makes the Trinnov 16/32 cost so much? I hear they are like $15,000+ and were released about five years ago. So wouldn't that make their hardware components obsolete compared to new processors like RMC-1/HTP-1/8805 (etc)? Also, does Trinnov processors utilize Audyssey or Dirac?

I have personally owned processors that utilize Audyssey, Dirac, and now I own the Trinnov. I can tell you this...

IMO Dirac is far better than Audyssey, however, the Trinnov optimizer is completely in a league of its own. If you buy a Trinnov you get a very stable processor that does all the basics well. I'd compare its stability to the Marantz 8805 which I owned before it. Then you get the best room correction software available and its not even close. As well as both hardware and firmware upgradability that keep it at the top of pack in both functionality and feature set.

Its tough to say anything is worth paying 3x the price of anything else. At 2x I think its an excellent value so it really comes down to whether the extra 4- $5,000 luxury tax is worth it to someone to own the piece.

I sure hope your right because I have been playing the processor merry-go-round for the last two years. I finally bit the bullet and went Trinnov.

From my perspective...unless you need want more than 16 channels (A32) the A16 checks all the boxes and then some! Other than maybe a Bryston Sp4/Storm nothing is even close from a stability standpoint let alone feature set. Again, I think you'll quickly agree the optimizer alone is worth the price of admission.

I am bouncing around upgrading to the 32 for the digital output to remove the A/D conversion.

Go for it! You may as well do it properly from the start or you will be too distracted whenever you use it thinking how much better the sound could have been.

Absolutely understand! I don't value that as much as others so for me it wasn't a factor in my decision.

Do you have the Trinnov 16 or 32?

I definitely want a processor that supports DOLBY ATMOS, DTS:X (DTS:X Pro) AND AURO-3D upmixing. That had me looking at the AV8805 and the HTP-1, but Audyssey on the AV8805 runs at 48khz/24bit and Dirac on the HTP-1 also runs at 48khz/24bit. The RMC-1 will be running Dirac 2.0 at 96khz/24bit, but no AURO-3D.

The Bryston SP4 looks interesting. Does it have Dirac 2.0 and what khz/bit does Dirac run at? Are the XRL outputs fully differential like on RMC-1?

And for the Trinnov 16/32: What does their own RC run at for khz/bit and are the XRL outputs fully differential like on RMC-1?

Can you go into more detail about how that works?

That really would be the only reason along the CPU power which may or may not become a factor in the future. I am 100% JBL M2/7 series so being able to use the processor for the tuning files and to utilize the digital is the only benefit I see over the Alt16. I have no intention of going beyond 7.x.4 from a speaker perspective. I think that is the sweet spot for home Atmos at the moment. I see very little ROI with top middles in a single row room. I would like to try wides but there is so little content that uses it why bother. However, I do run 4 subs, so I need at least 15 channels.
There is that too.....but I typically don't succumb to peer pressure
The Alt16 is fixed at 16 channels with no expand-ability. It doesn't have digital outs and is limited to 24/96
The Alt32 is modular available with 8, 16, 24, or 32 channels. It has digital outs and is 24/192 on up to 16 channels. It also has an i7 processor vs the i3 on the Alt16.

You have to make the decision on which way you want to go at purchase. I told my dealer to hold my order until I decide. The 16 is a serious kick in the financial balls, while the 32 requires giving up a testicle.

So are you saying you choose how many channels the Alt32 comes with when you order? It doesn't just come with 32 channels stock? And I take it price goes up with more channels you choose too!

Okay so 24/192 up to 16 channels. What is it using all 32 channels? What use cases do the AES digital outputs have?

Would it be possible to mirror two sets of 16 channels? First 16 channels goes to something like an XLR Audio Interface. Then mirror the second set of 16 channels to go a traditional speaker layout?

I would suggest you ask this in the Trinnov thread, so we don't further clutter this one.

Lonnie just posted an update on Dirac in the owners' thread.

Okay

That wasnt the update everyone was hoping for.....

Gotta love the 1st reply post: "Thank-you, sir, may I have another?".