RMC-1 how many channels do you want in the RMC-1?

[Jim]

I know there are a few lounge members that would like a number of channels for new codecs.

How many are you looking for?

7.1? ( or 7.x)
9.1? (or 9.x)
11.x
12 or more? (Like 12-16 or whatever)

Edit: I know there are 5.1 users - I didn't mean to exclude you. Id think that a 7.1 processor would be your choice - since that's the minimum that anyone is likely to build (because of current BR codecs)

[novisnick]

I'm doing 11.3 now but I know part of it is a made up matrix
But I do love it!
Peace,
Nick

[hemster]

Voted 7.x. When we get a proliferation of sources in 7.x I may consider more.

[cwmcobra]

I agree with hemster. 7.x seems more than sufficient until new, greater channel sources are developed. Going more than 7 channels would also make it necessary to change my speaker strategy. I can't imagine 15 or 20 Klipsch heritage speakers in my theater!

[Jim]

Oct 24, 2013 15:39:25 GMT -5 hemster said:

Voted 7.x. When we get a proliferation of sources in 7.x I may consider more.

I agree. I just wanted to see if the group that wants tons of channels really was in the minority. Discrete channels are really important to me too.

I'd rather have 7 robust and well matched speakers than 9,11,16 or whatever. And I'd rather not sacrifice quality or price for lots of extra channels.

[Gary Cook]

There's no 5.1 option?

Cheers
Gary

[dust770]

I would love to have more channels, but sadly it seems to be taking forever for the industry to adopt 7.1 as a standard, so I can only imagine how long 9.1 or more would take. I upgraded my receiver years ago for the 7.1 and have been dissapointed for years how the majority of Blu's are released in 5.1. Seems that this year many of the new releases are finally on board. Not a real fan of matrixed sound, but it does seem feesable that for the RMC to remain relavant for the next 5-10 yrs that it should have 9.1 and a way to use those channels for their future intended purpose. For now the RMC would still be in the running for me if it only had 7.1

[Deleted]

I would rather focus on 7.2 and be able to equip the system with quality amps and speakers. By going with more than that, the quality of the components is going to suffer due to budget constraints. Also, the room dictates how many speakers are suitable and with my listening room, 7.2 will be more than adequate. 

[Jim]

Oct 24, 2013 16:08:20 GMT -5 Gary Cook said:

There's no 5.1 option?

Cheers
Gary

I guess I should have said how many should it include?

I can't imagine it shipping with less than 7.1 - since that's pretty much the minimum standard.

But yeah - I get that you would USE 5.1.

[Jim]

Oct 24, 2013 16:09:14 GMT -5 dust770 said:

I would love to have more channels, but sadly it seems to be taking forever for the industry to adopt 7.1 as a standard, so I can only imagine how long 9.1 or more would take. I upgraded my receiver years ago for the 7.1 and have been dissapointed for years how the majority of Blu's are released in 5.1. Seems that this year many of the new releases are finally on board. Not a real fan of matrixed sound, but it does seem feesable that for the RMC to remain relavant for the next 5-10 yrs that it should have 9.1 and a way to use those channels for their future intended purpose. For now the RMC would still be in the running for me if it only had 7.1

That's an interesting point. Having a couple more channels might extend its lifespan - since I imagine soundtracks will *eventually* get there.

[hemster]

I would think that the next big thing is holographic technology where the movie would be 'enacted' in your living room/home theater. As an active participant rather than a passive viewer, you would be able to partake in the movie. I know that a lot of research has been done in this area at MIT so commercialization of the tech cannot be far behind. Should be great fun for all the family.. and the pets!

[Gary Cook]

Oct 24, 2013 16:11:37 GMT -5 Jim said:

Oct 24, 2013 16:08:20 GMT -5 Gary Cook said:

There's no 5.1 option?

I guess I should have said how many should it include?
I can't imagine it shipping with less than 7.1 - since that's pretty much the minimum standard.
But yeah - I get that you would USE 5.1.

Just floating the breeze here, but what if the RMC-1 came in 2 versions, one with say 5.2 or maybe 7.2 and another with 13.4 or whatever?
I don't see myself ever using more than 5.2, maybe 7.2, so if i want "the best" processor why should I pay for 8.2 channels that I will never use?
The number of channels doesn't make it "the best" processor, just one with more channels. What makes it "the best" processor is how it sounds.

Cheers
Gary

[LCSeminole]

I barely have enough room for 7.2 right now, so if I go with more channels I'll be buying a new house to accommodate(and that's not happening anytime soon). This is of course if those extra channels are discrete, otherwise I have no use for matrixed channels above 7.x.

[klinemj]

All this talk of lots of speakers reminds me of my old high school pal who took the back seat out of his '68 Chevelle, built a "love shack" that took the place of the seat and extended into the trunk, and he filled the whole thing with speakers. It got loud...not necessarily good sound, but it was loud...

I'll stick with 7.x for the foreseeable future.

Mark

[geebo]

A 5.2 arrangement would suit me just fine.

[Gary Cook]

If you could add the 5.2 option I think you might be surprised at how many would use it.


Cheers
Gary

[AudioHTIT]

Oct 24, 2013 16:11:37 GMT -5 Jim said:

I guess I should have said how many should it include?

That makes a big difference, I didn't vote until I read that. Even though I'd probably use 5 or 7 I think it needs at least 9 as another distinction from the XMC-1, and for those who want it.

[Jim]

Oct 24, 2013 17:24:51 GMT -5 Gary Cook said:

If you could add the 5.2 option I think you might be surprised at how many would use it.


Cheers
Gary

I don't think I can modify an existing poll. I'll keep poking and see if there is an option I missed. The only option I see is remove poll.

[Jim]

Oct 24, 2013 17:30:04 GMT -5 AudioHTIT said:

Oct 24, 2013 16:11:37 GMT -5 Jim said:

I guess I should have said how many should it include?

That makes a big difference, I didn't vote until I read that. Even though I'd probably use 5 or 7 I think it needs at least 9 as another distinction from the XMC-1, and for those who want it.

For some, how many they will use dictates how many they believe it should include... So it's somewhat semantics.

I changed the title... Hopefully it's more clear.

[cwt]

Fundamental question to me is the longevity of the platform ;dts neo x discs though few atm [3 or so] are appreciated already ; and ability to apply dsp's we have now so the more the better

www.homecinemachoice.com/news/article/exclusive-the-expendables-2--111-neo-x-audio-review/13896 ;and when the object based codecs come in the more speakers the more pinpoint the steering can be ; retrofitting in the drywall no thanks

And if there's enough channels like 16 you get the option of totally balanced 7.1 like the denon avpa1 or a combination of 2ch/3ch balanced and the rest unbalanced like Erwin mentioned earlier ; some nice flexibility for sure ;)Some db25 digital connectors may make daisy chaining possible for those who prefer less channels - if that's possible ive no idea