|
Post by cwt on Aug 14, 2018 4:23:58 GMT -5
I don’t know about that, did you see how many pages ensued about how to configure the XMC’s subs, a lot of people like playing with subs, but how many people want to decode their multichannel Audio in their player? Especially with Atmos/DTS:X now being part of the mix, I’m happy to let the processor do the decode, but we each have our preferences. I still occasionally use the tuner, but I’d prefer if it had HD and doubt it will, a (better) tuner module for those who want it makes sense, but I doubt it would ever get built. I’m guessing the built in tuner doesn’t add much cost or space, except the back panel which is dear. Can certainly see the multi sub card being important to many[in comparison to 7.1 ins] and would speculate that so many outputs would tie in with dirac unison [which utilises the lfe channels ] Yes tuners these days are very simple LSI's small ; cheap and ubiquitous. The golden days when you had switchable IF bandwidth for precise selectivity and decent blending to quash noise are sadly mostly gone - at least for built ins Interesting article on modifying stand alones for those who want better .. home.iprimus.com.au/toddemslie/howtoselectatunerforfmdx.html
|
|
|
Post by goozoo on Aug 14, 2018 15:14:27 GMT -5
I do use the tuner fairly often, and have multiple subs as do a fair number of HT folk, so would not buy without those options available. I'd have to buy a tuner, a significant cost and I am not sure how many stand-alone tuners are around these days (do not really want to pay for a Magnum or similar). Having the processor at least time-align the subs is a big help, then I can tweak Dirac Live. Many folk seem to go the miniDSP route with multiple subs and at least that is a fairly inexpensive upgrade though is one more thing to buy, install, power, and learn, which is an easier pill to swallow when you haven't laid out $5k or whatever for the base processor. And its competition is likely to provide a tuner and at least two independent subwoofer outputs so that is a consideration. I have not unboxed my turntable and probably won't at this point. The main reason to do so would be better mastering and thus better sound from the source (so vexing that many old LPs sound better than CDs due to that, it is nothing to do with the actual performance of the player, just lousy remastered CDs, IME/IMO). But I do not have a place for a TT anymore and have no longing to return to the endless tweaking and cleaning to get my records sounding their best. That said, I could live with an external phono box, might even be better since I could get the TT off to the side for access and run longer line-level cables to the processor. I did that years back using a custom (DIY) phono preamp to drive my main preamp. I guess that leaves me with this ranking: 1) Tuner = must-have. 2) Multiple sub outputs = very much preferred but a reasonable work-around could be had with extra cost and time. 3) Phono preamp = not a big deal either way since the resurgence of vinyl means a lot of phono preamps are available from <$100 to >$10k and there are advantages in short cables to a remote pre-preamp. The RMC-1 is geared and billed as a cinema processor above all else. For that reason alone, I can see how a tuner is ommitted, as well as only 1 LFE output since it is a monophonic track (which is split off into multiples via an external DSP for HT use). From reading your post, it really sounds like the XMC-1 Gen3 would be more to your needs as it will most likely contain all the things you are asking on your list. Unfortunately, it is likely a year away.
|
|
|
Post by donh50 on Aug 14, 2018 16:31:43 GMT -5
The RMC-1 is geared and billed as a cinema processor above all else. For that reason alone, I can see how a tuner is ommitted, as well as only 1 LFE output since it is a monophonic track (which is split off into multiples via an external DSP for HT use). From reading your post, it really sounds like the XMC-1 Gen3 would be more to your needs as it will most likely contain all the things you are asking on your list. Unfortunately, it is likely a year away. Yah, you are probably right... After waiting two years to get the v3 video board, and now another month or two for FW updates so it works with my TV, I'm not terribly sanguine about the delivery dates. I realize on this site that's accepted but not sure how the world at large will view it. I do not like but can agree with the tuner omission, but only one sub output means people with multiple subs, which I suspect is a small but significant fraction of the high-end HT market, will have to buy and implement another solution. I realize here it's Emotiva Above All, but they are going to have significant competition IMO, and every little bit helps. High-end HT processors I have looked at in the $5k and up range have at least two sub channels if not more, and the more expensive units allow you to set up channels as you please. Emotiva's fan base puts up with a lot but I'm not sure they'll be able to expand their base if you have to band-aide a processor like the RMC-1. For myself, I keep thinking about the RMC-1, but I have no plans for Atmos or similar so if the XMC-1's v3 board works then I will probably dwell on it for some time. If not, I'll probably look elsewhere for my next processor in the next year or two (I usually upgrade about every five or so), and the fan base here will say "good riddance". Just my opinion, fwiwfm - Don
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Aug 14, 2018 16:45:19 GMT -5
I just want to be clear, when I said having multiple sub outputs was a niche, I was referring to the expansion module. The original RMC picture shows it having 3 sub outputs. If outputs are strictly assigned in that configuration, then it would be more of a 7.3.6 or 9.3.4 processor. Dan has talked that it could do 9.1.6, so that leads me to believe the outputs will be assignable, at least to some extent. But the module was described as going even farther, like being able to take the unit to 9.4.6 or something like that (I don't remember the exact post and I'm not going to go looking for it). I think that would most certainly be a niche. Remember, people here on this forum are a niche.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Aug 14, 2018 18:47:19 GMT -5
I understand that it's a magnitude more expensive but the Storm processor, for example, has up to 32 output channels that can be configured however we choose. If we wanted, say, a 9.17.6 configuration then that's entirely possible, with all 32 channels utilising Dirac Live. It is possible to configure 2 completely independent 9.1.6 theatres, again equalised independently using Dirac Live. For one test we had it set up 9.3.6 with the 3 subs in mono (1 x LFE input) configuration for movies but with each sub equalised independently and also together. For music we had 2 x subs configured in stereo (1 x left and 1 x right). This is the sort of flexibility that the cost justifies, I don't think it "sounded" any better than my XMC-1 in the 7.1 configuration, so the extra cost is in the flexibility ie; processor grunt. It had the processor capacity and was programmable to accommodate way more set up configurations than we could think of, let alone try in a weekend.
Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by goozoo on Aug 15, 2018 0:22:24 GMT -5
I understand that it's a magnitude more expensive but the Storm processor, for example, has up to 32 output channels that can be configured however we choose. If we wanted, say, a 9.17.6 configuration then that's entirely possible, with all 32 channels utilising Dirac Live. It is possible to configure 2 completely independent 9.1.6 theatres, again equalised independently using Dirac Live. For one test we had it set up 9.3.6 with the 3 subs in mono (1 x LFE input) configuration for movies but with each sub equalised independently and also together. For music we had 2 x subs configured in stereo (1 x left and 1 x right). This is the sort of flexibility that the cost justifies, I don't think it "sounded" any better than my XMC-1 in the 7.1 configuration, so the extra cost is in the flexibility ie; processor grunt. It had the processor capacity and was programmable to accommodate way more set up configurations than we could think of, let alone try in a weekend. Cheers Gary That is really sad to hear Gary that you felt the sound was no better than the XMC-1 in 7.1 config. For $20K you would think it would sound better as well. Seems like DIRAC was acting as the great equalizer. I am curious as to how DIRAC was handling the subs individually. I was under the impression that the software only could do .1. Just to confirm, you are saying that DIRAC was used to optimize all 18 channels individually in the 9.3.6 setup that you listened to? This has been one of my questions from Emotiva into how they were going to implement DIRAC into their 16 channels.
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Aug 15, 2018 1:13:02 GMT -5
Okay, I understand that a lot of people are ... less than excited by the ... "delays", etc.
But the reason I think that most of us are here is because we want a product which performs better than others which cost significantly more. But the cost structure of this interest is that the people doing this work don't have the resources of the much larger companies like Denon/Marantz/etc.
My particular interest is the absolute best sound I can get. I currently just run my Opponent 203 UHD directly into my old Pioneer 600M and listen to music through Optical S/PDIF into my DMC-1. I could live with this video bypass solution for quite some time, but am jonesing for a better DAC than offered by the DMC-1. But even then, it's to that important to me.
Meanwhile, being in the computer business and knowing how hard PHYs (physical Interfaces) are to get right, I mostly just watch and see all of the expected issues being dealt with — especially for a small company.
So I watch and wait and live with my current situation. And it's not bad.
If I were to offer any criticism of Emotiva it would mostly be: do what you can, and let the products which are ready come out in their own time. Oh, and Processors Suck. They're completely beholden to every standard in the market.
Casey
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Aug 15, 2018 1:41:39 GMT -5
The RMC-1 is geared and billed as a cinema processor above all else. For that reason alone, I can see how a tuner is ommitted, as well as only 1 LFE output since it is a monophonic track (which is split off into multiples via an external DSP for HT use). ... I do not like but can agree with the tuner omission, but only one sub output means people with multiple subs, which I suspect is a small but significant fraction of the high-end HT market, will have to buy and implement another solution. ... In its ‘default’ configuration the RMC-1 should do 7.3.6 which would give you up to 3 subs, that should take care of most people (I’ll be good with 2). Those with more subs, those wanting 9.1.6, and those wanting the most complete sub configuration options, might want the sub module—if it comes to be—or something like a mini-dsp (hey Bonzo, can you get 4 XLR’s on one of those slot plates?)
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Aug 15, 2018 1:52:44 GMT -5
I just want to be clear, when I said having multiple sub outputs was a niche, I was referring to the expansion module. The original RMC picture shows it having 3 sub outputs. If outputs are strictly assigned in that configuration, then it would be more of a 7.3.6 or 9.3.4 processor. Dan has talked that it could do 9.1.6, so that leads me to believe the outputs will be assignable, at least to some extent. But the module was described as going even farther, like being able to take the unit to 9.4.6 or something like that (I don't remember the exact post and I'm not going to go looking for it). I think that would most certainly be a niche. Remember, people here on this forum are a niche. I don’t think without the sub module you could do 9.3.x. The way I remember Dan describing it, the L/R sub outputs can be repurposed to take it from 7.3.x to 9.1.x capable. Once you use the wides for 9.x.x you’re at 1 sub. It’s not a totally flexible channel layout as Gary describes the Storm, but a good compromise.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Aug 15, 2018 6:38:09 GMT -5
I understand that it's a magnitude more expensive but the Storm processor, for example, has up to 32 output channels that can be configured however we choose. If we wanted, say, a 9.17.6 configuration then that's entirely possible, with all 32 channels utilising Dirac Live. It is possible to configure 2 completely independent 9.1.6 theatres, again equalised independently using Dirac Live. For one test we had it set up 9.3.6 with the 3 subs in mono (1 x LFE input) configuration for movies but with each sub equalised independently and also together. For music we had 2 x subs configured in stereo (1 x left and 1 x right). This is the sort of flexibility that the cost justifies, I don't think it "sounded" any better than my XMC-1 in the 7.1 configuration, so the extra cost is in the flexibility ie; processor grunt. It had the processor capacity and was programmable to accommodate way more set up configurations than we could think of, let alone try in a weekend. That is really sad to hear Gary that you felt the sound was no better than the XMC-1 in 7.1 config. For $20K you would think it would sound better as well. Seems like DIRAC was acting as the great equalizer. I am curious as to how DIRAC was handling the subs individually. I was under the impression that the software only could do .1. Just to confirm, you are saying that DIRAC was used to optimize all 18 channels individually in the 9.3.6 setup that you listened to? This has been one of my questions from Emotiva into how they were going to implement DIRAC into their 16 channels. I wasn’t the one running the process, it takes some training and practise, so please excuse the simple answers. My friend Graham ran Dirac on each sub, one at a time, then ran it on the stereo pair and lastly on all 3 at once. Each of those “Dirac corrections” was saved on the PC and internally in the Storm for later use. The Storm then has the ability to recall any of the “corrections” based on the input and/or output selected. For example play a stereo CD and it will use the “correction” for stereo sub (ie; 2.2) play a BD with mono LFE (eg; 7.1.4) and it uses the “correction” for all 3. That sort of flexibility takes considerable processor grunt and tunability. Perhaps I need to explain my definition of “sounded”, there is no doubt the Storm has superior processing. But once past that DAC implementation, into the pre amplification, there is very little difference between it and the XMC-1. Of course the Storm sounded way better in say a 7.1.4 set up playing an Atmos sound track because the XMC-1 can’t do that. Maybe when the XMC-1 can play an Atmos track it might be a more worthwhile comparison. Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by bblv on Aug 15, 2018 22:32:38 GMT -5
My friend Graham ran Dirac on each sub, one at a time, then ran it on the stereo pair and lastly on all 3 at once. Each of those “Dirac corrections” was saved on the PC and internally in the Storm for later use. The Storm then has the ability to recall any of the “corrections” based on the input and/or output selected. For example play a stereo CD and it will use the “correction” for stereo sub (ie; 2.2) play a BD with mono LFE (eg; 7.1.4) and it uses the “correction” for all 3. That sort of flexibility takes considerable processor grunt and tunability. Cheers Gary That description of the Storm's flexibility gets me excited to see how Emotiva is going to implement similar processing with the RMC-1. I'd love to have the option to buy a "bass processing module" add-on to process from one to four subs, as needed, as bonzo mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by goozoo on Aug 16, 2018 0:22:48 GMT -5
My friend Graham ran Dirac on each sub, one at a time, then ran it on the stereo pair and lastly on all 3 at once. Each of those “Dirac corrections” was saved on the PC and internally in the Storm for later use. The Storm then has the ability to recall any of the “corrections” based on the input and/or output selected. For example play a stereo CD and it will use the “correction” for stereo sub (ie; 2.2) play a BD with mono LFE (eg; 7.1.4) and it uses the “correction” for all 3. That sort of flexibility takes considerable processor grunt and tunability. Cheers Gary That description of the Storm's flexibility gets me excited to see how Emotiva is going to implement similar processing with the RMC-1. I'd love to have the option to buy a "bass processing module" add-on to process from one to four subs, as needed, as bonzo mentioned. There is no advantage to doing what Gary described or Bonzo proposes when it comes to subs. EQ'ing multiple subs is about output and phase alignment. The house curve remains the same as a flat line regardless of whether or not you're listening to stereo music, or multi-channel cinema. Adding or subtracting subs from the mix only evens out the in-room bass response as each one has the same house (target) curve- flat. What I was inquiring about was how DIRAC was being implemented in the height and width channels. Storm Audio claims that it is applied to ALL channels, but that sounds like a one-off solution as DIRAC currently only handles 7.2. This is where I am curious as to how Emotiva will implement room correction to correct for all 16 channels. For the RMC-1 to pull this off will put it into the likes of Trinnov and Storm Audio at a fraction of their cost.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Aug 16, 2018 9:10:46 GMT -5
... I do not like but can agree with the tuner omission, but only one sub output means people with multiple subs, which I suspect is a small but significant fraction of the high-end HT market, will have to buy and implement another solution. ... In its ‘default’ configuration the RMC-1 should do 7.3.6 which would give you up to 3 subs, that should take care of most people (I’ll be good with 2). Those with more subs, those wanting 9.1.6, and those wanting the most complete sub configuration options, might want the sub module—if it comes to be—or something like a mini-dsp (hey Bonzo, can you get 4 XLR’s on one of those slot plates?) When I did this the other day, using the old picture we have, from what I see they can get 4, even 5, but not 6. Of course they could always us mini-XLRs like the NAD unit uses, or use RCAs, to get it up to 6.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Aug 16, 2018 9:18:57 GMT -5
That description of the Storm's flexibility gets me excited to see how Emotiva is going to implement similar processing with the RMC-1. I'd love to have the option to buy a "bass processing module" add-on to process from one to four subs, as needed, as bonzo mentioned. There is no advantage to doing what Gary described or Bonzo proposes when it comes to subs. Just to be clear, I have not proposed anything. Dan did the proposing (I forget which thread he said this in). Since we don't have any details, we are just discussing hypotheticals. I did make the crude photoshop picture in the post above. It shows that with the current back panel we have seen, that they can get 5 XLR outputs into one expansion module slot, but not 6. Something would have to give. Doesn't really matter to me, because my room would never accommodate more than 2 external subs (I have 2 already built into my speakers), and I only plan on having 1 that will double as an end table. IF I ever decide to get an RMC-1, I would run 7.3.6 and be done. My room won't allow for wides. But, I would also required something like the other module I photoshopped on the left, an analog input/output module.
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Aug 16, 2018 10:35:02 GMT -5
In its ‘default’ configuration the RMC-1 should do 7.3.6 which would give you up to 3 subs, that should take care of most people (I’ll be good with 2). Those with more subs, those wanting 9.1.6, and those wanting the most complete sub configuration options, might want the sub module—if it comes to be—or something like a mini-dsp (hey Bonzo, can you get 4 XLR’s on one of those slot plates?) When I did this the other day, using the old picture we have, from what I see they can get 4, even 5, but not 6. Of course they could always us mini-XLRs like the NAD unit uses, or use RCAs, to get it up to 6. View AttachmentIf I were to use 4 subs (which isn’t likely) I’d want XLR’s or mini-XLR’s with the RMC-1 — not only for the typically longer runs of a subwoofer, but also because all the channels are balanced. So it seems they have space to do a 4 output balanced sub module.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Aug 16, 2018 11:48:10 GMT -5
Can someone else find Dan's post about the subwoofer expansion module? I've searched now for a while but simply can't find it.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Aug 16, 2018 12:42:28 GMT -5
That description of the Storm's flexibility gets me excited to see how Emotiva is going to implement similar processing with the RMC-1. I'd love to have the option to buy a "bass processing module" add-on to process from one to four subs, as needed, as bonzo mentioned. There is no advantage to doing what Gary described or Bonzo proposes when it comes to subs. EQ'ing multiple subs is about output and phase alignment. The house curve remains the same as a flat line regardless of whether or not you're listening to stereo music, or multi-channel cinema. Adding or subtracting subs from the mix only evens out the in-room bass response as each one has the same house (target) curve- flat. What I was inquiring about was how DIRAC was being implemented in the height and width channels. Storm Audio claims that it is applied to ALL channels, but that sounds like a one-off solution as DIRAC currently only handles 7.2. This is where I am curious as to how Emotiva will implement room correction to correct for all 16 channels. For the RMC-1 to pull this off will put it into the likes of Trinnov and Storm Audio at a fraction of their cost. The Storm Dirac equalisation for 2 (stereo subs) is noticeably different than the equalisation for 3 subs (LFE mono). My assumption is that is due to the interaction between the subs plus stereo versus mono. My understanding is that the Storm had run equalisation on all 32 channels in the commercial preview theatre that we borrowed it from. Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Aug 16, 2018 12:46:59 GMT -5
Can someone else find Dan's post about the subwoofer expansion module? I've searched now for a while but simply can't find it. Here’s the best I can do, I guess it’s six subs. AVS Forum's 2018 Expona coverage:“Dan Laufman at Emotiva gave us a preshow interview and tour. Yesterday I was very impressed by the Emotiva presentation. After speaking with Dan today I’m even more excited for what the company has coming out.
“Let’s start with an answer to the question above: yes, the RMC-1 is capable of full discrete 16 channel processing, including front wides, with no matrixing.
“There’s also an expansion module for the RMC-1 in the works that will give it support for up to 6 subwoofers, all discretely managed with individual delay, phase, level, and Dirac processing per sub.
“Dan also mentioned that HDMI 2.1 boards are being developed and will be available for all RMC, XMC, and XMR units, with an option for the end user to install it themves to avoid having to ship the whole unit back.“That’s from here: emotivalounge.proboards.com/post/939062/threadAnd here’s the AVS post it’s from: www.avsforum.com/forum/173-2-channel-audio/2969746-axpona-2018-recap-3.html#post56034088
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Aug 16, 2018 13:00:46 GMT -5
Can someone else find Dan's post about the subwoofer expansion module? I've searched now for a while but simply can't find it. Here’s the best I can do, I guess it’s six subs. AVS Forum's 2018 Expona coverage: “Dan Laufman at Emotiva gave us a preshow interview and tour. Yesterday I was very impressed by the Emotiva presentation. After speaking with Dan today I’m even more excited for what the company has coming out. “Let’s start with an answer to the question above: yes, the RMC-1 is capable of full discrete 16 channel processing, including front wides, with no matrixing. “ There’s also an expansion module for the RMC-1 in the works that will give it support for up to 6 subwoofers, all discretely managed with individual delay, phase, level, and Dirac processing per sub.“Dan also mentioned that HDMI 2.1 boards are being developed and will be available for all RMC, XMC, and XMR units, with an option for the end user to install it themves to avoid having to ship the whole unit back.“ emotivalounge.proboards.com/post/939062/threadHere’s the AVS post it’s from: www.avsforum.com/forum/173-2-channel-audio/2969746-axpona-2018-recap-3.html#post56034088I used every key word in my search that mattered and still couldn't find this. What did you type to search? Yeah, its always been 6. But yeah know, its doesn't necessarily say the module will have six, he only says it takes it up to 6. So the module could only have 3 new outputs, in theory.
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Aug 16, 2018 13:06:45 GMT -5
I used every key word in my search that mattered and still couldn't find this. What did you type to search? Yeah, its always been 6. But yeah know, its doesn't necessarily say the module will have six, he only says it takes it up to 6. So the module could only have 3 new outputs, in theory. Did this Google search: site:emotivalounge.proboards.com rmc-1 sub module danAs for combining the sub out outputs to get 6, I’d say it would depend on whether they’ve implemented any new time alignment options in he RMC-1 itself. If not then I’d think you’d want all of your subs hooked to the module.
|
|