|
Post by Brian on Aug 8, 2010 11:02:55 GMT -5
"Since there is no fixing of BM, the XMC will have the same BM? " Don't read anything into that statement. Lonnie is simply stating that the base management as implemented in the UMC-1 does not need fixing because that is how it was designed. That does not mean that base management for the XMC-1 will be implemented similarly. I can assure you that EMO is taking note of all the (customer) complaints, and has learned a lot from the design & release of the UMC-1. EMO would like to sell as many XMC-1s as possible, because that it why they are in business - to sell products and run a profitable company. To do that, you will have to satisfy your potential customers and, controversial products will not generate volume sales. Therefore, don't expect to find anything controversial about the XMC-1. At least the same controversies as with the UMC-1. jamrock Your reasoning have many gaps. As per Lonnie, most people like the BM. Try again.
|
|
|
Post by Brian on Aug 8, 2010 11:04:52 GMT -5
What, no smiley? ;D Are we then to take this as a serious reply? Markus' presence is not what makes the UMC-1 bass management incorrect, so his absence will not make it right. It will remain wrong until it is fixed. Oh boy, let's speculate on intent here. Please don't put words in my mouth or read in some dark intent that wasn't there. I just forgot the smiley, sorry, here it is. ;D BTW, teh bass manager works as it was desinged and intended. Markus and a couple of others may not like it but everyone else likes it so it won't be changed and there is nothing to fix. Here is the post from Lonnie.
|
|
|
Post by Mischief on Aug 8, 2010 11:06:13 GMT -5
"Since there is no fixing of BM, the XMC will have the same BM? " Don't read anything into that statement. Lonnie is simply stating that the base management as implemented in the UMC-1 does not need fixing because that is how it was designed. That does not mean that base management for the XMC-1 will be implemented similarly. I can assure you that EMO is taking note of all the (customer) complaints, and has learned a lot from the design & release of the UMC-1. EMO would like to sell as many XMC-1s as possible, because that it why they are in business - to sell products and run a profitable company. To do that, you will have to satisfy your potential customers and, controversial products will not generate volume sales. Therefore, don't expect to find anything controversial about the XMC-1. At least the same controversies as with the UMC-1. jamrock Your reasoning have many gaps. As per Lonnie, most people like the BM. Try again. Is it really such a gap to think a company would use a more complex or better system in a higher end product? Every company does that whether it is a better EQ system, better BM, or a higher level of THX certification. I think you the gap is in your reasoning, but that is just my opinion.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,352
|
Post by DYohn on Aug 8, 2010 11:13:03 GMT -5
You can't "fix" what isn't "broken." What Lonnie is saying is he does not intend to change the current UMC-1 architecture. Then the XMC will have the same BM if not "broken". If it changes, then we are back to broken. I predict av AVS post will soon appear: "Lonnie Vaughn confirms the XMC-1 bass management will be broken!"
|
|
|
Post by Brian on Aug 8, 2010 11:13:51 GMT -5
Your reasoning have many gaps. As per Lonnie, most people like the BM. Try again. Is it really such a gap to think a company would use a more complex or better system in a higher end product? Every company does that whether it is a better EQ system, better BM, or a higher level of THX certification. I think you the gap is in your reasoning, but that is just my opinion. I am just stating Lonnie's point on BM as shown above. What is "better BM" Markus'/AVRs..... or Lonnie's UMC 1?
|
|
|
Post by willfixit on Aug 8, 2010 11:16:09 GMT -5
You can't "fix" what isn't "broken." What Lonnie is saying is he does not intend to change the current UMC-1 architecture. Then the XMC will have the same BM if not "broken". If it changes, then we are back to broken. No, we may be looking at a different approach - it's not really just and/or.
|
|
|
Post by Mischief on Aug 8, 2010 11:15:26 GMT -5
Is it really such a gap to think a company would use a more complex or better system in a higher end product? Every company does that whether it is a better EQ system, better BM, or a higher level of THX certification. I think you the gap is in your reasoning, but that is just my opinion. I am just stating Lonnie's point on BM as shown above. What is "better BM" Markus'/AVRs..... or Lonnie's UMC 1? There are many methods to perform bass manaemnt, including support for multiple subs, it isn't a stretch to think the new unit will have a different solution. I know Lonnie is happy with the UMC version but that in no way translates to his intentions with the XMC.
|
|
|
Post by Brian on Aug 8, 2010 11:19:19 GMT -5
I am just stating Lonnie's point on BM as shown above. What is "better BM" Markus'/AVRs..... or Lonnie's UMC 1? There are many methods to perform bass manaemnt, including support for multiple subs, it isn't a stretch to think the new unit will have a different solution. I know Lonnie is happy with the UMC version but that in no way translates to his intentions with the XMC. Most people are happy not just Lonnie.
|
|
|
Post by Mischief on Aug 8, 2010 11:28:12 GMT -5
There are many methods to perform bass manaemnt, including support for multiple subs, it isn't a stretch to think the new unit will have a different solution. I know Lonnie is happy with the UMC version but that in no way translates to his intentions with the XMC. Most people are happy not just Lonnie. I am happy with it
|
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
Post by jamrock on Aug 8, 2010 11:48:05 GMT -5
"What is "better BM" Markus'/AVRs..... or Lonnie's UMC 1?"
Markus did not design any base management implementation. He was simply asking or demanding that Lonnie change the implementation of the BM in the UMC-1 to the more conventional design.
If you noticed carefully that, although Markus had a lot to say about the implementation of the BM, he NEVER reported on how it sounded in his system. Or, that he personally heard any anamoly as depicted in his graphs!
But, don't you think that Mischief's reply #26 should end this discussion? If not, then wait for the release of the XMC-1 to see how the BM is implemented then move on from there.
jamrock
|
|
|
Post by sankar on Aug 8, 2010 11:59:05 GMT -5
BTW, teh bass manager works as it was desinged and intended. Markus and a couple of others may not like it but everyone else likes it so it won't be changed and there is nothing to fix. I'm one of the "couple of others" - don't know who the remaining one is though.
|
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
Post by jamrock on Aug 8, 2010 12:07:51 GMT -5
Is anyone aware of a design feature where base management is made optional for each input. Is that even possible?
jamrock
|
|
|
Post by srrndhound on Aug 8, 2010 12:18:55 GMT -5
Also, instead of continuing with some version of the EmoQ, I wonder how much it would cost to integrate Audyssey MultEQ XT instead? Cost issues aside, the real roadblock is Emotiva's practice of summing bass after the EQ. That would prevent MultEQ xyz from working correctly, which of course wouldn't happen since Audyssey wouldn't permit it. Implementing MultEQ would require a restructuring of the audio signal path to follow "bassic" industry standards.
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis.ie on Aug 8, 2010 12:23:37 GMT -5
Unless the XMC-1 ends up being "just" a UMC-1 with balanced outputs and improved analogue and D/A. The rest of the chipset/software/connections could remain the same. Adding the 2nd HDMI output would not be too hard if it is just a clone of the first, whereas an independant one would need changes.
I hope this is not the case.
|
|
|
Post by srrndhound on Aug 8, 2010 12:33:20 GMT -5
Is anyone aware of a design feature where base management is made optional for each input. Is that even possible? Yes. There are processors that allow you to define more than one bass management mapping, maybe several, and then assign a specific one to each source. Some folks use this to facilitate Movie vs Music modes with different levels of bass (the channel trims are included in each setup), or whether to run the mains as full range for stereo direct mode, all sorts of reasons. Very useful feature.
|
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
Post by jamrock on Aug 8, 2010 12:34:17 GMT -5
"the real roadblock is Emotiva's practice of summing bass after the EQ."
You would have had to do the same thing several times or, least consistently, before it can be called a practice.
I learned about EMO in October 2009 while reading an article in Audioholics. So, I don't know, and has not bothered to research, if the UMC-1 and it's base management implementation is EMO's 1st effort in this kind of product. However, my impression is that the UMC-1 is their 1st pre/pro.
If I'm wrong, you have my sincere apology.
jamrock
|
|
|
Post by Stevens on Aug 8, 2010 12:37:02 GMT -5
Just a quick reality check before we all start coming up with our wish-list for the XMC:
Does anyone know how far down the development pipeline this product has actually come by now? Is it still being designed, have prototypes been made, is it being readied for production, is it due for release at Emo-fest, or how far has it actually come?
Also, I seem to recall a similar thread at some point, where Lonnie actually participated, showed & revised drawings, etc. Can't locate it now though.
|
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
Post by jamrock on Aug 8, 2010 12:46:22 GMT -5
"Yes. There are processors that allow you to define more than one bass management mapping, maybe several, and then assign a specific one to each source. Some folks use this to facilitate Movie vs Music modes with different levels of bass (the channel trims are included in each setup), or whether to run the mains as full range for stereo direct mode, all sorts of reasons. Very useful feature"
Yes! Add this to my feature list...... Thanx srrndhound.
jamrock
|
|
|
Post by Brian on Aug 8, 2010 12:51:44 GMT -5
"What is "better BM" Markus'/AVRs..... or Lonnie's UMC 1?" Markus did not design any base management implementation. He was simply asking or demanding that Lonnie change the implementation of the BM in the UMC-1 to the more conventional design. If you noticed carefully that, although Markus had a lot to say about the implementation of the BM, he NEVER reported on how it sounded in his system. Or, that he personally heard any anamoly as depicted in his graphs! But, don't you think that Mischief's reply #26 should end this discussion? If not, then wait for the release of the XMC-1 to see how the BM is implemented then move on from there. jamrock Never stated he designed the BM but was stating the "anomaly" in his graphs are not considered "anomaly" to Emo. If that's the BM that Emo likes then why change it. Emo is not happy with basic ind standard.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,352
|
Post by DYohn on Aug 8, 2010 12:53:18 GMT -5
"the real roadblock is Emotiva's practice of summing bass after the EQ." You would have had to do the same thing several times or, least consistently, before it can be called a practice. I learned about EMO in October 2009 while reading an article in Audioholics. So, I don't know, and has not bothered to research, if the UMC-1 and it's base management implementation is EMO's 1st effort in this kind of product. However, my impression is that the UMC-1 is their 1st pre/pro. If I'm wrong, you have my sincere apology. jamrock The UMC-1 is their first HDMI pre-pro, but hardly their first A/V processor. Check out the Retired Gear product page on the Emotiva web site: emotiva.com/archives.shtm The first time I was attracted to Emotiva was auditioning the DMC-1 at a friend's home and noting the marked similarities to my Sunfire TGP which had cost me about 3X what was paid for the DMC-1...
|
|