Emotiva XMC-1 Processor with Dirac Room EQ Review

[RichB]

Well, if your Dirac measurements have been properly done then the range between 100 and 300 Hz is at least 10 dBs lower than the rest... if you consider that a much less "boxy sound" that's OK, I never debate on listening opinions being them so subjective.

Flavio

I followed the Dirac instructions...many times

I will I remeasure with REW and OmniMic2 with the Dirac 9 positions separately with each speaker and ASIO. Then that will be my Baseline.

- Rich

 

[RichB]

That's true, I missed that. I have taken numerous measurements with REW and minidsp Umik-1 and have never come across anything close to what you've got with yours.

I be doing some additional runs in the coming weeks.
The plan is to includeUMIK-1, EMM-6, and OmniMic2 since all have individual calibration files with FL/FW using the Dirac 9 measurement positions.

- Rich

 

[RichB]

Here is a REW (Java driver) with both speakers driven.
The 9-Dirac positions were measured.

- Rich

 

[flak2]

Here is a REW (Java driver) with both speakers driven.
The 9-Dirac positions were measured.

- Rich

Dear Rich,

the new graph above is different and it's hard to discriminate among the different speakers but if you look at the general behaviour you will see the same depression centered at around 200 Hz that is then followed by the same weird big dip around 800 Hz and a second dip before 2 KHz... than the graph stops at 2 Khz.
These large dips are shown exactly at the same frequencies as in your previous graph where the general behaviour up to 2 KHz seems to be the same (Stereo Reference red curve):

I'd guess that you would see the same following large dips after 2 KHz if you would look at your new graph but full bandwidth... if that is the case I would not use it as a baseline.

My two cents of course,
Flavio

P.S. Sunday has now finished so unfortunately I'll have less time from tomorrow :-(

 

[mtrycrafts]

Does it have a learning remote?

 

[RichB]

Does it have a learning remote?

No.

- Rich

 

[RichB]

I intend to do new measurements for a baseline with separate FL/FR speakers in the Dirac positions.

Here is the same REW measurement of the FL/FR speakers (Java driver):

These are the Dirac positions with the FL/FR speakers both playing.
The dip between 100 and 300 Hz is not present.

Since things get wonky aft 800 Hz, I will re-measure. Then, it will be a baseline.

- Rich

 

[flak2]

.... with the FL/FR speakers both playing.

Hi Rich,

the interference of the FL/FR speakers may create a comb-filter effect due to playing the test signal in both speakers at the same time

I hope this helps,
Flavio

 

[RichB]

Hi Rich,

the interference of the FL/FR speakers may create a comb-filter effect due to playing the test signal in both speakers at the same time

I hope this helps,
Flavio

Agreed. That is why in phase II, I hope to get ASIO working to make simiplify the process of measureing each channel independantly (and may eliminate other problems as well).

The EMM-1 may not support the ASIO drivers, but I'll give it a go.

Thanks,

Rich

 

[PENG]

Here are REW plots for my Mirage, Java driver also, left and right on simultaneously measured from sitting position :

Surely your Studio and Salon2 should do much better than the 26 years old M760.

 

[RichB]

Here are REW plots for my Mirage, Java driver also, left and right on simultaneously measured from sitting position :

Surely your Studio and Salon2 should do much better than the 26 years old M760.

Surely, and they sound that way too.

What mic(s), REW version, and OS are you using?

- Rich

 

[PENG]

Surely, and they sound that way too.

What mic(s), REW version, and OS are you using?

- Rich

minidsp's Umik-1
REW Version 5.13
Windows 7

If you are not sure about Windows 10, why not try Mac?

 

[RichB]

Here are some measurements taken of the Salon2's with the OmniMic2 and the XMC-1 in Reference Stereo mode. The 9-Dirac positions used in the article were measured.

The chart with all 9 measurements is reminiscent of the Twilight Zone (Do not attempt to ajust the horintal or the vertical).

The average of all 9 shows that there is no reason for panic.

It also lends credence to the subjective listening conclusion that there was no problem in the 100 to 300 Hz range that required correction.

- Rich

 

[PENG]

Here are some measurements taken of the Salon2's with the OmniMic2 and the XMC-1 in Reference Stereo mode. The 9-Dirac positions used in the article were measured.

View attachment 16733

View attachment 16734

The chart with all 9 measurements is reminiscent of the Twilight Zone (Do not attempt to ajust the horintal or the vertical).

The average of all 9 shows that there is no reason for panic.

It also lends credence to the subjective listening conclusion that there was no problem in the 100 to 300 Hz range that required correction.

- Rich

Looking at those speaker plots I just can't believe people still worry about the small difference between DACs and amps that have much tighter specs confirmed by measurements.

 

[RichB]

Looking at those speaker plots I just can't believe people still worry about the small difference between DACs and amps that have much tighter specs confirmed by measurements.

Small differences, I think not. I love my HA-1...

It seems reasonable to me to conclude that OmniDirectional microphones are highly sensitive to location and somewhat erratic at higher frequencies (and sometimes are relatively low frequencies).

Large changes occur with small mic movements that don't seem to representation of what we hear.
The meaurements in Post 53 were taken at the same positions described in the article:

The measurements spanned a 3-foot wide by 14 inch deep area roughly matching the seating positions of my love seat. The low mic height was set to 38 inches and the high mic height at 47 inches. The 9 Dirac position measurements were then averaged.

Moving a mic just inches altered the measurements significantly. Do you hear these drastic (20 dB at 800 Hz) differences when you move your head a few inches? I don't.

If a mic, for whatever reason, is seeing a problem that is not heard (or possibly not present), then REQ will make a mess. Audyssey, Dirac, and others tell us that the purpose of multiple position measurements is to avoid optimizing 1 point. Another benefit may be statistical averaging to reduce the effect of mic measurement errors.

- Rich

 

[PENG]

Small differences, I think not. I love my HA-1...

It seems reasonable to me to conclude that OmniDirectional microphones are highly sensitive to location and somewhat erratic at higher frequencies (and sometimes are relatively low frequencies).

Large changes occur with small mic movements that don't seem to representation of what we hear.
The meaurements in Post 53 were taken at the same positions described in the article:


Moving a mic just inches altered the measurements significantly. Do you hear these drastic (20 dB at 800 Hz) differences when you move your head a few inches? I don't.

If a mic, for whatever reason, is seeing a problem that is not heard (or possibly not present), then REQ will make a mess. Audyssey, Dirac, and others tell us that the purpose of multiple position measurements is to avoid optimizing 1 point. Another benefit may be statistical averaging to reduce the effect of mic measurement errors.

- Rich

I love my HA-1 too but I also know in a blind test I would have no chance identifying it against my other electronic gear. I think the talk about the limitations of the omnidirectional microphones are highly overrated. I am not saying it accurately represents what we hear but when you use them to measure and compare different speakers you will see much more variance than if you use the same to compare, say, amps. For example, if you were to repeat the same tests to compare your HA-1 and a 8801 (I know you don't have it now), you will find that the plots will overlap to the point you would only see one. I have done that sort of comparison measurements so I know that is the case.

The audible difference between speakers is much greater than that between amps. Simple measurements using even just low cost omnidirectional mic with good software confirms what we already know. Lastly, you know I happen to believe that there are subtle differences in SQ between different electronic gear, but I believe in focusing on quality of recording and speakers for the biggest bang for the buck.

 

[RichB]

I love my HA-1 too but I also know in a blind test I would have no chance identifying it against my other electronic gear.

I believe you have stated that the HA-1 was superior to the BDP-105...

I think the talk about the limitations of the omnidirectional microphones are highly overrated.

I have a 3 calibrated mic's and get strikingly different measurements. For low frequencies they seem fine.
Taking action based on these high-frequency measurements would be a mistake, IMO.

I am not saying it accurately represents what we hear but when you use them to measure and compare different speakers you will see much more variance than if you use the same to compare, say, amps.

If you believe that inexpensive omnidirectional mics don't accurately represent what we hear (as I do), I don't know why using them as a quality metric makes much sense.

For example, if you were to repeat the same tests to compare your HA-1 and a 8801 (I know you don't have it now), you will find that the plots will overlap to the point you would only see one. I have done that sort of comparison measurements so I know that is the case.

I have compared measurements of Reference Stereo and Stereo (Flat) and they track closely; Very close but not overlapping. I do believe I would pass a blind test comparing two of my DACs. Perhaps, I will try when I get a chance. It would have to be SBT.

The audible difference between speakers is much greater than that between amps. Simple measurements using even just low cost omnidirectional mic with good software confirms what we already know.

I guess we will have to disagree on this one as my measurements results, thus far, are unreliable.

As you know, I recently upgraded my Ultima1's to Ultima2's and there is quite a difference. I have old measurements of the Salon1's and now the Salon2's. I could put them on a graph and that would not come close to enlightening the listener on how they differ.

Lastly, you know I happen to believe that there are subtle differences in SQ between different electronic gear, but I believe in focusing on quality of recording and speakers for the biggest bang for the buck.

I absolutely agree and I have done the same. I am still running my monoprice 12-gage speaker wire

- Rich

 

[PENG]

I believe you have stated that the HA-1 was superior to the BDP-105...


I have a 3 calibrated mic's and get strikingly different measurements. For low frequencies they seem fine.
Taking action based on these high-frequency measurements would be a mistake, IMO.

If you believe that inexpensive omnidirectional mics don't accurately represent what we hear (as I do), I don't know why using them as a quality metric makes much sense.

I have compared measurements of Reference Stereo and Stereo (Flat) and they track closely; Very close but not overlapping. I do believe I would pass a blind test comparing two of my DACs. Perhaps, I will try when I get a chance. It would have to be SBT.

I guess we will have to disagree on this one as my measurements results, thus far, are unreliable.



- Rich

The mic and rew, omnimic or Dirac may not accurately represent what we hear but they should be accurate enough for us to compare the in room responses of speakers. Logically if you have two nearly identical graphs using two different amps but same speakers in the same location then the audible difference should be subtle. And yes I do feel the HA 1 sound better than the 105 but it is like IRV said, it is just a preference develpoed over long term listening.

 

[RichB]

The mic and few, omnimic or Dirac may not accurately represent what we hear but they should be accurate enough for us to compare the in room responses of speakers.

That would depend on the mic and measurer. I think John Atkinson does someting like 90 positions (if memory serves).

Logically if you have two nearly identical graphs using two different amps but some speakers in the same location then the audible difference should be subtle.

If you assume that a short sine-sweep at some level is representative of amplifier performance playing music. I would not make that assumption. No-one measures amps this way.

And yes I do feel the HA 1 sound better than the 105 but it is like IRV said, it is just a preference develpoed over long term listening.

I am big believer in long term listening. But I have also used level matching (with a muliti-meter), J River zones, and XLR switching to do some A/B comparisons that led to the same conclusion.

- Rich

 

[flak2]

Hi Rich,

with reference to the depression centered at appx.200 Hz I'd appreciate if you will repeat your Dirac Live measurements with a mic that has been individually calibrated... I think that you will get more reliable DL measurements (and better listening results)

Would you try that?
Thanks, Flavio