Emotiva XMC-1 Processor with Dirac Room EQ Review

[Goodfellas27]

Like PENG says, personal preference plays such a huge part. One reviewer may like one software, and another reviewer may like the other software.

As for me, I would take Audyssey Dynamic EQ simply because I think it produces the most perfect sound quality I have ever heard.

Like you said, what matters most is the actual sound quality. So even if the Audyssey DEQ pre-pro were more expensive, I would take it 100% of the time over Emotiva.

True that's all down to preferences; however, have you heard Dirac Live versus a Audyssey Pro? I heard them both, and Dirac Live makes the sound stage sound huge, Specially in STEREO. It sounded more "dynamic" and had wider sound stage. Anyways, if you have a calibrated mic, just give it a try. The PC version has a free trial. It may change your opinion.

I love the different flavors life give you.

 

[Goodfellas27]

Even if they do, such reviews tend to be highly subjective by nature. Without EQ and other sound processing, and based on specs, I bet they will sound equally great. Unless you can A/B compare them yourself with your own setup in your own listening environment, I think it is better to base your choice on features you need, specs, bench test measurements, reliability records of the brands and prices. I don't know about Dirac but I find Audyssey XT32, Sub EQ HT, DEQ very effective. Some people don't particular like what it does to the front left/right channels but they have the bypass feature.

True, nothing like testing the gear in your own room. It's surprising what you could find-out that way. It could sound completely opposite of what someone else would says.

 

[PENG]

Anyways, if you have a calibrated mic, just give it a try. The PC version has a free trial. It may change your opinion.

Really, I have a Umik-1 Mic that has a calibration file, is that all I need? What's the catch/limitation of the free trial version?

 

[Goodfellas27]

Really, I have a Umik-1 Mic that has a calibration file, is that all I need? What's the catch/limitation of the free trial version?

None that I am aware of
check it out their site: www(dot)dirac(dot)com/online-store

Let us know how it goes

 

[Alexandre]

I've also tried Dirac at home on my Mac and I have to say that it's really good!

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

True that's all down to preferences; however, have you heard Dirac Live versus a Audyssey Pro? I heard them both, and Dirac Live makes the sound stage sound huge, Specially in STEREO. It sounded more "dynamic" and had wider sound stage. Anyways, if you have a calibrated mic, just give it a try. The PC version has a free trial. It may change your opinion.

I love the different flavors life give you.

Yes, I have heard Dirac, Audyssey, Anthem ARC, & Lyngdorf.

 

[Asif1980]

Do you feel Dirac adequately compensates for the limitations of other setup programs like MultiEQ XT etc? Considering Dr. Toole's recent article, do you feel Dirac is a worthy upgrade, or is it still an overly complicated marketing tool, rather than a room correction tool? A 'wall' of sound is not necessarily the objective for everyone.

The rest of this processor sounds delightful, though! I like the no nonsense approach and lack of concern applied to features such as Atmos and the gazillions of options available for streaming content. I also greatly appreciate the inclusion of XLR connections. Cables inevitably get tugged on. Why we got away from PC locking cables is beyond me, so the security of having a solid XLR connection is invaluable! I'm looking at you, HDMI!

The USA made Emotiva XMC-1 7.2 channel AV processor is designed with audiophile performance in mind with its fully differential two-channel analog audio section. It is one of the few AV processors on the market implementing Dirac LE and Dirac Full ($99 upgrade) room correction and manual PEQ customization. You don’t get every possible feature found in a budget AVR, but you do get “High-End” performance and plenty of HDMI inputs with upgrade to HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 on the way.

Read: Emotiva XMC-1 7.2 Channel AV Processor Review

Are there any fellow XMC-1 owners here? If so, please share your experiences and let us know how you like Dirac Room EQ.

The USA made Emotiva XMC-1 7.2 channel AV processor is designed with audiophile performance in mind with its fully differential two-channel analog audio section. It is one of the few AV processors on the market implementing Dirac LE and Dirac Full ($99 upgrade) room correction and manual PEQ customization. You don’t get every possible feature found in a budget AVR, but you do get “High-End” performance and plenty of HDMI inputs with upgrade to HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 on the way.

Read: Emotiva XMC-1 7.2 Channel AV Processor Review

Are there any fellow XMC-1 owners here? If so, please share your experiences and let us know how you like Dirac Room EQ.

Hi Gene- Reviews seems detailed and very technical. In common terms how do you explain fully differential input to output front channel?

To experience fully differential do we need special speakers or any towers (i.e., Def.tech BP8060ST) would suffice?

 

[dmusoke]

Not Gene here ... but you don't need any special speakers when using a differential audio device. A differential signal consists a signal S and its inversion -S. When received by an audio processor/amplifier, the 2 signals are subtracted from each other S - (-S) to produce a combined signal twice the amplitude or 2S.

Now, when external noise N hits both signal lines its referred as common mode noise. The same operation described above takes place, i.e (S+N) and (-S+N) are received and are subtracted by the processor/amplifier circuitry as explained above.

The result is a signal of value [(S+N) - (-S+N)] = 2S. The external noise now is completely rejected and we now have a clean signal 2S. It's as is the noise never existed That is the advantage of differential amplifiers...they are really adept at cancelling external noise injected on their inputs (plus also cancelling out odd harmonic distortion products but that's another story, no worries). So that's why they are a must for an audio device to be considered audiophile quality. They not only cancel external noise but also internal noise within the audio device itself (within limits of course).

You will be exposed to a fairly noise-free listening experience if your setup is differential from signal source with diff. outputs to an audio/video processor with diff. inputs and outputs to an amplifier with diff. inputs. Amplifier outputs are always single ended to your speaker, regardless of whether their inputs are differential or not.

Sorry for the long answer but I hope it helps!

God bless,
David

 

[Asif1980]

Not Gene here ... but you don't need any special speakers when using a differential audio device. A differential signal consists a signal S and its inversion -S. When received by an audio processor/amplifier, the 2 signals are subtracted from each other S - (-S) to produce a combined signal twice the amplitude or 2S.

Now, when external noise N hits both signal lines its referred as common mode noise. The same operation described above takes place, i.e (S+N) and (-S+N) are received and are subtracted by the processor/amplifier circuitry as explained above.

The result is a signal of value [(S+N) - (-S+N)] = 2S. The external noise now is completely rejected and we now have a clean signal 2S. It's as is the noise never existed That is the advantage of differential amplifiers...they are really adept at cancelling external noise injected on their inputs (plus also cancelling out odd harmonic distortion products but that's another story, no worries). So that's why they are a must for an audio device to be considered audiophile quality. They not only cancel external noise but also internal noise within the audio device itself (within limits of course).

You will be exposed to a fairly noise-free listening experience if your setup is differential from signal source with diff. outputs to an audio/video processor with diff. inputs and outputs to an amplifier with diff. inputs. Amplifier outputs are always single ended to your speaker, regardless of whether their inputs are differential or not.

Sorry for the long answer but I hope it helps!

God bless,
David

Thanks David.

In product terms when we use balanced/XLR output from any pre-amp/processor to balanced/XLR output on any power amplifier is called fully differential input to output?

 

[dmusoke]

By definition, a full Diff-In Diff-out device is one which has both XLR inputs and XLR outputs, like the stereo i/o of the XMC-1.

Now it's not just a matter of slapping on these XLR connectors, but the whole internal circuitry must be differential throughout the entire signal chain from XLR input to XLR output, like Emotiva claims in its literature.
Some manufacturer's slap these connectors on just for show. They'd convert balanced input signals to single-ended signals internally, process it as needed then right before output, they convert back to balanced.
Not nice, but how can you spot them? If the SNR of the SE input is the same (or worse!) as that of the Diff-Input, then you know that they process the signal SE internally. But if the SNR of the SE input is worse than that of the Diff input or put another way, if the SNR of the Diff Input is better than its SE input (normally by 3dB or more), then you can be assured the internal circuit chain is fully differential.

Look at these Emotiva specs for their SE vs Diff inputs as an example.

Analog Performance
Balanced Input to Balanced Output (Reference Stereo Mode)
THD: <0.0005% @ 1 kHz
THD: < 0.002% (20 Hz to 20 kHz)
IMD: < 0.004% @ 1 kHz
S/N ratio: > 123 dB (A weighted)
Frequency Response: 5 Hz to 80 kHz (+0 / -0.1 dB)
Crosstalk: <100 dB

Unbalanced Input to Unbalanced Output (Reference Stereo Mode)
THD: <0.0007% @ 1 kHz
THD: < 0.003% (20 Hz to 20 kHz)
IMD: < 0.005% @ 1 kHz
S/N ratio: > 114 dB (A weighted)
Frequency Response: 5 Hz to 80 kHz (+0 / -0.1 dB)
Crosstalk: <100 dB

 

[A_Shah]

The USA made Emotiva XMC-1 7.2 channel AV processor is designed with audiophile performance in mind with its fully differential two-channel analog audio section. It is one of the few AV processors on the market implementing Dirac LE and Dirac Full ($99 upgrade) room correction and manual PEQ customization. You don’t get every possible feature found in a budget AVR, but you do get “High-End” performance and plenty of HDMI inputs with upgrade to HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 on the way.

Read: Emotiva XMC-1 7.2 Channel AV Processor Review

Are there any fellow XMC-1 owners here? If so, please share your experiences and let us know how you like Dirac Room EQ.

How come never seen a review of Odyssey amplifiers Gene ?

 

[Pogre]

Does Audyssey even make amplifiers?

 

[A_Shah]

It is not Audyssey ! which is a room calibration program, I am talking about "Odyssey" they make hi end two channel and 3 channel power Amplifiers which go under the name of Kismet, Stratos, and Kartoga's although I have never heard one but they seem to be highly regarded by audiophiles check out youtube video's or the absolute Sound reviews

 

[Pogre]

It is not Audyssey ! which is a room calibration program, I am talking about "Odyssey" they make hi end two channel and 3 channel power Amplifiers which go under the name of Kismet, Stratos, and Kartoga's although I have never heard one but they seem to be highly regarded by audiophiles check out youtube video's or the absolute Sound reviews

Sorry, my mistake. I'm gonna go google "Odyssey" and check them out.

 

[Asif1980]

By definition, a full Diff-In Diff-out device is one which has both XLR inputs and XLR outputs, like the stereo i/o of the XMC-1.

Now it's not just a matter of slapping on these XLR connectors, but the whole internal circuitry must be differential throughout the entire signal chain from XLR input to XLR output, like Emotiva claims in its literature.
Some manufacturer's slap these connectors on just for show. They'd convert balanced input signals to single-ended signals internally, process it as needed then right before output, they convert back to balanced.
Not nice, but how can you spot them? If the SNR of the SE input is the same (or worse!) as that of the Diff-Input, then you know that they process the signal SE internally. But if the SNR of the SE input is worse than that of the Diff input or put another way, if the SNR of the Diff Input is better than its SE input (normally by 3dB or more), then you can be assured the internal circuit chain is fully differential.

Look at these Emotiva specs for their SE vs Diff inputs as an example.

Analog Performance
Balanced Input to Balanced Output (Reference Stereo Mode)
THD: <0.0005% @ 1 kHz
THD: < 0.002% (20 Hz to 20 kHz)
IMD: < 0.004% @ 1 kHz
S/N ratio: > 123 dB (A weighted)
Frequency Response: 5 Hz to 80 kHz (+0 / -0.1 dB)
Crosstalk: <100 dB

Unbalanced Input to Unbalanced Output (Reference Stereo Mode)
THD: <0.0007% @ 1 kHz
THD: < 0.003% (20 Hz to 20 kHz)
IMD: < 0.005% @ 1 kHz
S/N ratio: > 114 dB (A weighted)
Frequency Response: 5 Hz to 80 kHz (+0 / -0.1 dB)
Crosstalk: <100 dB

We might need 200WPC for front 3 channels but do we really need 200WPC for surround channels??

 

[Asif1980]

Here are the measurements taken with the UMM-6 calibrated:

View attachment 16755

The measurements below were taken with the Dirac 9 positions. The Front Left and Right were taken using the ASIO drivers output and the Stereo measurements were taken with the Java Stereo output:

Concentrating on below 2K:

View attachment 16756

Up to 20K:

View attachment 16757

Again, Dirac is measing a dip in the 100 to 300 Hz range that is not found using other measurement software and microphones.



Is is possible to load the measurements taken by Dirac into REW?

- Rich

We might need 200WPC for front 3 channels but do we really need 200WPC for surround channels??

 

[RichB]

We might need 200WPC for front 3 channels but do we really need 200WPC for surround channels??

There has been some analysis that the center channel produces 80% or more of the sound. That is not related to your question but its interesting

Sound tracks can be made sending full range to all speakers. Power requirement are dictated by your speakers, room, and listening habits. Some bookshelf speakers are very inefficient and dip to 4 ohms. Some are easy to drive. Bass-management reduces the power requirements.

In general, systems will not use the 200 watts to their rears. But there are some very economical multi-channel amps out there so it makes sense to buy one and drive the entire system.

- Rich

 

[lovinthehd]

There has been some analysis that the center channel produces 80% or more of the sound. That is not related to your question but its interesting

Sound tracks can be made sending full range to all speakers. Power requirement are dictated by your speakers, room, and listening habits. Some bookshelf speakers are very inefficient and dip to 4 ohms. Some are easy to drive. Bass-management reduces the power requirements.

In general, systems will not use the 200 watts to their rears. But there are some very economical multi-channel amps out there so it makes sense to buy one and drive the entire system.

- Rich

To add to this my experience is that surrounds are generally not requiring the same amp levels but depends on the particular recording. Some will use 'em all at high levels but IME most don't. Hard to get that surround experience with them all at the same level primarily, so usually I consider their requirements at least 3dB down, and usually more. Not scientifically measured, @yepimonfire I believe will say he has measured quite a few to the contrary....

 

[yepimonfire]

To add to this my experience is that surrounds are generally not requiring the same amp levels but depends on the particular recording. Some will use 'em all at high levels but IME most don't. Hard to get that surround experience with them all at the same level primarily, so usually I consider their requirements at least 3dB down, and usually more. Not scientifically measured, @yepimonfire I believe will say he has measured quite a few to the contrary....

Based on dB relative to full scale that's correct. It depends on the movie and the genre but a majority of action movies are going to have scenes that utilize all 5 speakers almost equally. The idea that surrounds are mainly just for ambiance and don't carry as much content stopped being true when dolby surround was phased out in favor of discrete dolby digital. Add to that fact that most people utilize smaller (and therefore less efficient) speakers for surrounds, and you may end up nullifying any gains achieved via a closer proximity. Dialogue centric movies are a different story, but when putting together a system it's obviously a good idea to make sure it can handle a variety of content.

Both THX specifications and dolby's specifications state that each channel should be capable of 105dB at the listening position at full range. The majority of us listen about 10-15dB down because that's just too loud for most people in a home setting, but the point is if you think you might need more power, it's likely your surrounds need it too.

Of course, using an external amp will free up some headroom in the receiver due to power supply limitations, since most AVR's are going to be lucky to supply 70% of their 2ch rms rating into all 5 channels, but I'd focus on offloading the center channel first rather than just the front left and right, since, as the previous poster correctly stated, it carries 60-80% of the soundtrack.

Also worth mentioning, bass management doesn't always reduce power requirements. Many ported speakers are most efficient around their tuning frequency.

crossing a speaker such as this one over at something like 80hz would do nothing to reduce the power requirements.

Whether or not somebody needs more than their avr can supply is really dependant on seating distance, speaker efficiency, and listening volume. If you're certain you're not going to exceed a certain volume, figuring out how much power you need in a worst case scenario is easy. For example, at a distance of 12 feet using a 91dB 1w1m speaker at a volume of -10dBfs you've got 5dB of headroom at 100w to cover stuff like impedance dips, but let's assume all channels driven and apply the 70% rule, at 70w, you've still got 3dB of headroom. Keep in mind this is also ignoring room reflections, which can add an additional 3dB. I'm sure @lovinthehd is going to jump in and add that each speaker adds 3dB, and while this is true, it doesn't change the fact that 10dB below reference still has a maximum peak of 95dB per channel, and yes, if one measures the max spl on a sound level meter during an intense action movie you'll likely see peaks of 110-115dB because there are 6+ speakers involved. I think the loudest peak I've measured at -10dB was 120dB during an explosion involving all 7 channels near max on The Force Awakens.

 

[lovinthehd]

I'm sure @lovinthehd is going to jump in and add that each speaker....

No, but I might point out a different consideration, that the smaller satellites could be a few dB less sensitive than the mains, so may take more than their share of amp power in that respect....