I own XTZ and used if for several months, but this was a while ago. Can you summarize how OmniMic compares to XTZ? What features did you feel it had that were most advantageous?
DC, the two most significant issues were:
1) The XTZ will only measure with a resolution of 6ppo. Fine for frequencies above transition, woefully inadequate for properly identifying problems @ frequencies below. You really need minimum 24ppo and 48 is even better. A quick read of the new XTZ II products appears to show the same limitation
2) The way the XTZ (non-Pro) is constructed makes it difficult to use a proper mic stand, which I feel is important in order to a) minimize vibration and b) achieve repeatable mic location in order to compare measurements taken now vs. say, a month ago. I had to purchase an extension cable to separate the mic from the XTZ "stand" so that I could put it into a
real mic stand and, even then, the tiny mic won't fit any standard mic holder.
Also,
Nyal Mellor/Jeff Hedbeck's paper on optimal 2ch conditions/measurements got me interested in the importance of Energy Time Curve (ETC) measurements. Omnimic will measure ETC, XTZ will not.
Now, having said all this, the XTZ will measure and average multiple locations and Omnimic will not. Also, XTZ will, after measurement, provide PEQ filter values and Omnimic will not. But....I've had XTZ indicate "no modes found" many times when the measurements clearly show that they're there, so the value of this feature is, IMHO, questionable and it's childsplay to calculate filters from the measurements anyway.
Finally, the new XTZ II models have a nifty time-alignment feature, useful for precisely setting delay/distance for mains and sub(s). Omnimic can never do this, since signals are generated via CD and time from signal generation to arrival @ mic can't be calculated.
I'm sure there are more differences, pro and con, but these are the ones important to me.