|
Post by Tip on May 31, 2012 17:05:02 GMT -5
If it has no video thru with power off; Connect a hdmi soplitter to the cable box out. From the splitter (1) Connect to the XMC-1 to hdmi 1 on the TV. (2) From the splitter directly to hdmi 2 on the TV. Solved. Hopefully, the great sound of the XMC-1 makes up for the added energy needed to press 2 more buttons on the remote. Hopefully, this will be a moot issue. Unfortunately this doesn't work, at least for the HMDI splitter I tried. The problem is that the HDMI splitter will select an audio/video mode that is common to both the TV and the XMC-1. My TV (Samsung PN58A55) only accepts the stereo audio mode and thus my UMC-1 received stereo instead of multi-channel audio from my STB through the HDMI splitter.
|
|
|
Post by matt on May 31, 2012 17:05:07 GMT -5
Processing video in a processor will probably do more harm than good. Only the display knows about its subpixel structure and scaling is always more optimal with techniques that account for the subpixel structure. Frame rate increases should never be done more than once in the chain, and if the display increases the frame rate above what HDMI supports, then only the display can can perform this task optimally. The video from the XMC-1 will look better due to the lack of processing.
|
|
|
Post by petes on May 31, 2012 17:40:07 GMT -5
Processing video in a processor will probably do more harm than good. Only the display knows about its subpixel structure and scaling is always more optimal with techniques that account for the subpixel structure. Frame rate increases should never be done more than once in the chain, and if the display increases the frame rate above what HDMI supports, then only the display can can perform this task optimally. The video from the XMC-1 will look better due to the lack of processing. Hmmm - think I'll have to take issue with bits of this (although I agree that no VP in the XMC is a good thing of course). Processing video in a poor processor may do more harm than good, but doing it decently is definately a good thing. And, the processing built into displays is generally nothing like as good as that which you can get in decent VP, or even a good Bluray. The display manufacturers tend to licence slightly old VP tech from the same people that make their own VPs or licence it to bluray manafacturers - e.g. ABT (aka DVDO) , Faroudja, etc.. Could you build great VP into a display - sure. Do the display manufacturers tend to do this - nope - just would add too much cost and complexity. Take an SD image, scale it in a VP from DVDO or Lumagen and then compare this to the same image scaled natively by the display - if you configure things properly, the VP will win hands down every time. And that's before you get onto deinterlacing or CMS. Some receivers have better processing than some displays - some don't. Dedicated VPs will almost always better and more flexible processing than displays. The nice thing about no VP in the XMC is that we get a choice. If you're happy with the VQ from your bluray and display, then that's super. If you want to really step up, then you can get an external VP and not worry about it's image quality being messed around by the poor quality VP in the receiver.
|
|
|
Post by matt on May 31, 2012 18:01:25 GMT -5
Your statement holds true before subpixel mapping and 120Hz refresh rates were available on displays. Now that they are, I think video processing techniques need to be reconsidered. If someone wants great video, then they need a great display with video processing if needed. I say if needed because in my case, when I play 2D Blu-ray's at their native 24 Hz on a 1080p display, then I do not need sophisticated processing. But when I play 720p or 1080i content, a dedicated video processor might be okay. It would be better to scale with subpixel mapping so that it matches the display's subpixel structure. But when I play 1080p 3D content with 480Hz and motion interpolation, I need that processing in the display only. Using an audiophile quality processor to compensate for a poor display is a waste of money. There will be cases where the display technology is good but the video processing is poor, but someone who truly cares about their video will recognize that the display can perform optimizations that a dedicated video processor cannot and will seek out those displays with good display and video processing technology.
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,213
|
Post by geebo on May 31, 2012 19:24:22 GMT -5
rr, When you say Emotiva's processors have far better SQ than the competitors AVRs do you mean for music and HT or just music? I ask as I found the UMC-1 to have very good SQ when listening to 2CH music but for HT use I preferred my Onkyo 886. So I'm not sure how you can say "everyone" agrees that the UMC-1 has better SQ than any of its competitors. Bill Don't know about the 886, but the UMC-1 + XPA-5 beets my old Onkyo 807 in every possible way I can think of. And it runs about 3,000 degrees Farenheit cooler!
|
|
|
Post by billmac on May 31, 2012 19:43:20 GMT -5
Don't know about the 886, but the UMC-1 + XPA-5 beets my old Onkyo 807 in every possible way I can think of. And it runs about 3,000 degrees Farenheit cooler! Everyone has different opinions and thoughts on what sounds good to them in their room. In my room the 886 was better for HT use and MCH music with Audyssey MultEQ XT than the UMC-1 with Emo-Q. I have followed the many threads of the UMC-1 since its release. In that I have seen a number of UMC-1 owners return or sell them for other AVRs or prepros. So to say "everyone" agrees that the UMC-1 has superior SQ to everything out there is not an accurate statement IMO. Bill
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,213
|
Post by geebo on May 31, 2012 20:05:17 GMT -5
Don't know about the 886, but the UMC-1 + XPA-5 beets my old Onkyo 807 in every possible way I can think of. And it runs about 3,000 degrees Farenheit cooler! Everyone has different opinions and thoughts on what sounds good to them in their room. In my room the 886 was better for HT use and MCH music with Audyssey MultEQ XT than the UMC-1 with Emo-Q. I have followed the many threads of the UMC-1 since its release. In that I have seen a number of UMC-1 owners return or sell them for other AVRs or prepros. So to say "everyone" agrees that the UMC-1 has superior SQ to everything out there is not an accurate statement IMO. Bill I never said anything of the sort...
|
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,513
|
Post by LCSeminole on May 31, 2012 20:16:30 GMT -5
Everyone has different opinions and thoughts on what sounds good to them in their room. In my room the 886 was better for HT use and MCH music with Audyssey MultEQ XT than the UMC-1 with Emo-Q. I have followed the many threads of the UMC-1 since its release. In that I have seen a number of UMC-1 owners return or sell them for other AVRs or prepros. So to say "everyone" agrees that the UMC-1 has superior SQ to everything out there is not an accurate statement IMO. Bill I never said anything of the sort... George, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that billmac was addressing another claim earlier in the thread as I saw no comparisons in your statement.
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,213
|
Post by geebo on May 31, 2012 20:29:07 GMT -5
I never said anything of the sort... George, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that billmac was addressing another claim earlier in the thread as I saw no comparisons in your statement. I'm sure you're correct LC. I just wanted to go on record that I never said that since I was the one quoted in the post, thats all.
|
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,513
|
Post by LCSeminole on May 31, 2012 20:36:25 GMT -5
George, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that billmac was addressing another claim earlier in the thread as I saw no comparisons in your statement. I'm sure you're correct LC. I just wanted to go on record that I never said that since I was the one quoted in the post, thats all. I completely understand George! Though I bet you do miss that Onkyo receiver as a space heater during those Tennessee winters eh.
|
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,513
|
Post by LCSeminole on May 31, 2012 20:40:37 GMT -5
Hi all- been following this thread since the beginning and I'm also on the XMC pre-order list. I may have missed this previously, but does anyone know whether or not the XMC will have video pass through with the power off. Seems like it should be easier to implement with no VP, only switching. Thanks. Russ Several months ago Emotiva said that the XMC-1 will have video pass-through with power off. Nothing further has been said about it, so if this feature is a deal breaker you need to contact Emotiva to see if will be included in the production model. As you probably know, features often change while bringing new products to market. I'd completely forgotten this RR, as this is a nice feature for those that don't need to fire up the home theater just to watch the flat panel. I do indeed hope this makes the production model.
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,213
|
Post by geebo on May 31, 2012 20:48:38 GMT -5
I'm sure you're correct LC. I just wanted to go on record that I never said that since I was the one quoted in the post, thats all. I completely understand George! Though I bet you do miss that Onkyo receiver as a space heater during those Tennessee winters eh. Yep. ;D It even ran hotter as a pre/pro than the XPA-5 does!
|
|
|
Post by billmac on May 31, 2012 21:07:39 GMT -5
I never said anything of the sort... I never said that you said that. If you check out post #851 and #859 you will see what I was referring to. Also if you look back at your post #864 you directly quoted me in reference to posts #851 and #859. I guess I'm not the only one around here with a bad memory ;D. I miss my Onkyo 805 as it heated my entire house during the cold Maine winters up here . Bill
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,213
|
Post by geebo on May 31, 2012 21:17:42 GMT -5
I never said anything of the sort... I never said that you said that. If you check out post #851 and #859 you will see what I was referring to. Also if you look back at your post #864 you directly quoted me in reference to posts #851 and #859. I guess I'm not the only one around here with a bad memory ;D. I miss my Onkyo 805 as it heated my entire house during the cold Maine winters up here Bill Post 865 appears that you are replying directly to me as it's my quote that you included. You then used the word "everyone" as if I had said it. So it might appear to others as that was something I had said. I just wanted everyone to be clear on what I didn't say. Nothing more. We cool?
|
|
|
Post by roadrunner on May 31, 2012 21:18:22 GMT -5
Bill
To clarify things for you, I posted, "I don't know how long you have been following Emotiva's sound quality in their HT processors, but they have been known to have outstanding sonic quality, far better than the SQ offered by competitor's receivers." Notice that I said "competitor's RECEIVERS". The post was in response to another Lounge member being afraid that mainstream receivers might have better sound quality than the upcoming XMC-1. As usual, you took a snippet of what I posted and used it out of context.
I made no statement about competitors standalone HT processors. In the past, I have posted several times that Emotiva's HT processors have better sound quality with ANALOG AUDIO than the main stream manufacturers. When I posted a direct comparison of the sound quality of the Emotiva MMC-1 and the UMC-1 versus the Integra version of the ONkYO 886 HT processor I stated that the Emotiva processor sounded far better than the Integra in ANALOG AUDIO and held a much smaller advantage over the INTEGRA with HT movie sound tracks. I went into a great deal of detail as to how I tested the competing processors.
When you responded you agreed that the Emotiva processors had better sound quality with analog audio, much as you did in todays post. When I responded to your questions, a couple of years ago, I pointed out that when I discuss sound quality I am usually limiting my discussion to music, analog audio. I ended my response by summarizing my findings between the Emo HT processors and the Intergra version of the Onkyo 886 by saying: The Emo products, IMHO, sounded significantly better for 2-channel and multi-channel analog audio (CD, LP, DVD-A, SACD, and HDCD encoded albums); the Integra had marginally better video processing and far better flexibility in storing video settings; and that I found the Emo processors had marginally better sound quality for movie sound tracks, but performance was so close I would call this category a draw.
Judging movie sound quality becomes very subjective as to what the soundtrack should sound like, very similar to individuals choosing speakers -- very subjective. High quality music media is far easier to make meaninful sound quality judgments on and this is why I typically use music to compare the sound quality between competing processors. Please make note of this. Unless I state otherwise, whenever I discuss sound quality I am talking about music.
When I posted, yesterday, about "everyone agrees" the UMC-1 sounded better than its compeitors even after all the flack it took when first released I was lazy and should have said the vast majority of respondents on the Lounge said the UMC-1 sounded better. I assumed nearly everyone would know that I did not literally mean everyone. Rarely, if ever, you will not find everyone is in agreement on any particular topic. I probably should not make these types of assumptions, but I felt most people would be aware I was just being too lazy to include all the disclaimers on topics we feel it will be understood what my real intentions were. Shame on me.
I will try not to be so lazy in my future posts, but I am likely to slip up. So if I use a global term when disussing topics that a typical hobbyist would otherwise know that it is not really global, then just realize I got lazy again. I am terrible with remembering to use disclaimers in casual discussions. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by wisconsinite on May 31, 2012 21:25:09 GMT -5
disclaimers are very important nowadays ;D
|
|
|
Post by billmac on May 31, 2012 21:27:05 GMT -5
Post 865 appears that you are replying directly to me as it's my quote that you included. You then used the word "everyone" as if I had said it. So it might appear to others as that was something I had said. I just wanted everyone to be clear on what I didn't say. Nothing more. We cool? Of course we're cool . But you have to admit that you did quote my post that had the "everyone" in question in the post twice. Even LC caught that and I assume "everyone" else did . Bill
|
|
|
Post by jdskycaster on May 31, 2012 21:27:55 GMT -5
Since the XMC-1 would be slated for my dedicated HT I may be in the minority here when I say my hopes for how this device performs are firmly planted in this camp.
I would also add that when I did my side by side comparisons of the UMC-1 to various AVR's I did not perform any 2-ch listening tests. I was focused only on multi-channel audio and video performance.
|
|
|
Post by billmac on May 31, 2012 21:40:14 GMT -5
To clarify things for you, I posted, "I don't know how long you have been following Emotiva's sound quality in their HT processors, but they have been known to have outstanding sonic quality, far better than the SQ offered by competitor's receivers." Notice that I said "competitor's RECEIVERS". The post was in response to another Lounge member being afraid that mainstream receivers might have better sound quality than the upcoming XMC-1. As usual, you took a snippet of what I posted and used it out of context. rr, I didn't use your post out of context in the least. Even with all the flack the UMC-1 received when it was first released everyone agreed that it had better sound quality than any of its competitors. In the above it doesn't say "competitors receivers" it says "competitors". You might have meant "competitors receivers" but that is not how I read it. I only commented on your post as not "everyone" agreed that the UMC-1 had better SQ whether it was compared to an AVR or prepro. It is like if I said "everyone" has had issues with the UMC-1. Which of course is untrue and I would not say "everyone" anyhow. Bill
|
|
|
Post by cwmcobra on May 31, 2012 22:05:13 GMT -5
JD,
I might have missed it, but what were the results of your comparisons of the UMC-1 with various AVRs?
Thanks,
Chuck
|
|