|
Post by AudioHTIT on Sept 19, 2019 10:00:29 GMT -5
I would love all channel flexible assignments and mentioned something like this in the comparison thread/pole. My system will probably top out at 7.2.4, maybe 9.2.4, which if I wired as 9.1.4 would leave 2 free channels. If I could assign these extra channels as L/R, they could drive my two-channel amps/speakers, and I’d have more flexibility in using the two separate systems. I would not be bothered by numbered outputs, and already write down which speakers go to each output, along with their color code.
I understand this would be a huge change in functionality for Emotiva and isn’t likely anytime soon, but while we often think of new HDMI and expansion boards as keeping the various products relevant, expanding and rethinking the functionality of the core product could also go a long way toward extending the RMC-1’s useful life.
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Sept 19, 2019 10:05:41 GMT -5
Look, the choice between wides vs heights or tops exist on every 13 or 16 channel prepro that I know (yeh, yeh except Trinnov) , including the RMC-1. The choice on extra subs vs wides is also common. Labels may be different but the function is the same. Now when you go beyond 16 channels the assignments will be tricky unless some type of auto location of speaker positions is utilized (yeh, yeh, Trinnov has this). Then it won't matter which terminal you connect to, the speaker set up routine will set that speaker up correctly. Either that or someone is going to have to come up with some creative descriptive names for some of these possible weird speaker locations. Emotiva, how are you going to do this for 24 or is it 28 speakers? Disclaimer: Please note, this '*bleep*' does not own an RMC-1 yet. Interested in this as well. In object based audio setups it would make sense, that every speaker has a number and three coordinates (or 2 angle and one distance) Examble: Speaker12 x=1.33m y=2.64m z=4.72m. Speaker12 r=3m polar=15° azimut=18° At the moment almost every processor has pre set angles for speaker positions and only the distance can be modified. Btw: @mgbuff the choice "extra subs vs wides" is actually "heigt vs extra subs" for rmc1 which is disappointing because for alignment and eq of the subs an external dsp must be used, even the rmc has enough outputs. This is also why the assignment discussion was started. We brought this up with the initial talks almost 5 years ago when they announced they were building a flagship. The computing was too demanding for at least this iteration is how Keith put it. I’m hoping the xyz inputs is a characteristic of the RMC-2 board down the road. To not derail the thread though there is another thread where we propose what we want on the RMC-1 or for those features like this that seem further off I’d specify generation changes as a lot of people on the thread get aggravated when we discuss big things before the usability issues are handled. For me standard layouts from 7.1.4 to 17.1.10 is what this iteration would have to focus on and at least the RMC-1 can accept subwoofer modules so no one can’t make the unit work if they wish they could swap channels for subs.
|
|
hi
Minor Hero
Posts: 48
|
Post by hi on Sept 19, 2019 10:20:31 GMT -5
Interested in this as well. In object based audio setups it would make sense, that every speaker has a number and three coordinates (or 2 angle and one distance) Examble: Speaker12 x=1.33m y=2.64m z=4.72m. Speaker12 r=3m polar=15° azimut=18° At the moment almost every processor has pre set angles for speaker positions and only the distance can be modified. Btw: @mgbuff the choice "extra subs vs wides" is actually "heigt vs extra subs" for rmc1 which is disappointing because for alignment and eq of the subs an external dsp must be used, even the rmc has enough outputs. This is also why the assignment discussion was started. We brought this up with the initial talks almost 5 years ago when they announced they were building a flagship. The computing was too demanding for at least this iteration is how Keith put it. I’m hoping the xyz inputs is a characteristic of the RMC-2 board down the road. To not derail the thread though there is another thread where we propose what we want on the RMC-1 or for those features like this that seem further off I’d specify generation changes as a lot of people on the thread get aggravated when we discuss big things before the usability issues are handled. For me standard layouts from 7.1.4 to 17.1.10 is what this iteration would have to focus on and at least the RMC-1 can accept subwoofer modules so no one can’t make the unit work if they wish they could swap channels for subs. Please dont get this wrong: Apart from all the quirks and problems, when the processing power isn't adequate for handling xyz ccordinates, how they even want to adress the promised 28 speakers? Hopefully im wrong whit this.
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Sept 19, 2019 10:28:14 GMT -5
We brought this up with the initial talks almost 5 years ago when they announced they were building a flagship. The computing was too demanding for at least this iteration is how Keith put it. I’m hoping the xyz inputs is a characteristic of the RMC-2 board down the road. To not derail the thread though there is another thread where we propose what we want on the RMC-1 or for those features like this that seem further off I’d specify generation changes as a lot of people on the thread get aggravated when we discuss big things before the usability issues are handled. For me standard layouts from 7.1.4 to 17.1.10 is what this iteration would have to focus on and at least the RMC-1 can accept subwoofer modules so no one can’t make the unit work if they wish they could swap channels for subs. Please dont get this wrong: Apart from all the quirks and problems, when the processing power isn't adequate for handling xyz ccordinates, how they even want to adress the promised 28 speakers? Hopefully im wrong whit this. Supposedly they will be maxing it out with the higher channel layouts. I’m worried about the fine print of 28 channels myself. It hasn’t been stated it has the power for 17.1.10 I don’t think. It could be called 28 when in reality that’s when using bi amping and/or subwoofers. But if it does handle 17.1.10 and then we expect it to run complex algorithms on top of that for custom speaker placements that is a huge difference in computing demand we were told. I think waiting for Atmos release of layout standard somehow eliminates a macro compute process that would be needed. Maybe someone else knows the computational difference of Atmos provided layouts vs proprietary.
|
|
|
Post by TDifEQ on Sept 19, 2019 10:38:09 GMT -5
1. Owners vs Owners: Not good. 2. Owners vs Non-Owners: See 1 above. 3. Owners vs EMO: ok
|
|
|
Post by TDifEQ on Sept 19, 2019 10:39:35 GMT -5
Took a look at quality of sound, since that's EMO #1 priority. Why is ATMOS louder than DTS Neural:X by 5 to7 dB? DTS Neural:X vs ATMOS 1. 4K Dolby Vision Ready Player One: ATMOS was on the average 5 to 7 dB louder than Neural:X during the underground "backwards" race scene early in the movie: 00:26:14 thru 00:27:08. Louder can be misconstrued to mean sounds better. This scene was picked because it exercised the height/top speakers pretty good. 2. 4K Dolby Vision Ready Player One "King Kong Thump" at 00:27:09 was louder on ATMOS than Neural:X by 5.5dB. Config:OPPO203/Main_V/A_Out ---> Input1/RMC-1 RMC-1/Out1 --->Input1/Vertex2/Out1 --->--->Input2/JVC600 Projector RMC-1/Out2 --->Input0/Vertex2/Out0 --->Input1/LG_C8_77"_OLED Vertex2/Audio_Out ---> Input2/RMC-1 (ARC audio from LG ... have not tested this, yet) Source:4K Dolby Vision Ready Player One movie: 2160p/24 12bits Dolby Vision DD True HD/ATMOS vs DTS HDMA 5.1/Neural:X Cables:---> HDfury 18Mbps 6ft Cable --->---> Ruipro 18Mbps 33ft Fiber Cable Fig 1. Ready Player One Backwards Start Scene Fig 2. Ready Player One King Kong "Thump" Scene Fig 3. Ready Player King Kong Atmos Scene
|
|
|
Post by ttocs on Sept 19, 2019 11:02:34 GMT -5
I wonder if the RMC-1 "assignable/not-assignable" aspect is driven by a "lowest common denominator" design issue, namely the XMC-2. Is there something in the commonality of the lowly sibling that inhibits the favorite child?
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,004
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 19, 2019 11:02:35 GMT -5
Internally, Dolby Atmos treats objects as actual objects in 3D space. In the mastering software, each object can be assigned X/Y/Z coordinates, a level, and a size.
In some of the very early descriptions of the Atmos technology it was actually assumed that "you would be able to put speakers wherever you wanted to, tell the system where your speakers were, and it would figure it all out".
(From a programming perspective it's certainly possible to do this... and we do it all the time in 3D graphics applications.)
However, when you're talking about actual channels, and actual speakers, in an actual room, this turns out to be impractical for several reasons. For one thing, the calculations for "arbitrary speaker locations" are far more complicated than the calculations for a list of pre-specified speaker setups. It's not as simple as calculating the position of each speaker - and then just "adjusting a few numbers to move it"... ... because you also have to calculate every distance, and every reflection, from every surface in the room, and how these all affect our perception of objects in 3D space.
And, for another thing, it's obvious that some speaker layouts work well, while some do not. To take that to the absurd, having ten speakers, but all on the left side of the room, isn't likely to work very well. And, if someone decides to put two ceiling speakers, both in the front top left corner, you aren't going to be able to "fix it with processing".
Once you say "you can put the speakers wherever you want" you have to start checking for and ruling out "silly choices" and even "choices that just don't work very well". When the dust settles you always end up with "a list of locations that you know will work well" and a system that strongly encourages you to pick one from the list.
And, finally, as it turns out, most people actually do prefer some sort of guidance. Everyone would love to imagine that they can: "Just put the speakers wherever you want and the system will make them sound perfect." (And, if you believe that, I've got some winning lottery numbers to sell you.)
But nobody wants to hear: "Well, you can put the speakers anywhere you like, but of course some places will sound better than others. Good luck with that."
As you've probably noticed, when the home version of Dolby Atmos was released, it included a relatively short list of suggested speaker placements... And this is as per the established guidelines for "complying with the license and offering the recommended options and choices"
(When it comes down to it, nobody really wants us to offer you the option of spending a lot of money, making horrible choices, and ending up with a system that sounds bad.)
As a demand is seen for more options, more options are perfected and tested, and then added to the list.
Look, the choice between wides vs heights or tops exist on every 13 or 16 channel prepro that I know (yeh, yeh except Trinnov) , including the RMC-1. The choice on extra subs vs wides is also common. Labels may be different but the function is the same. Now when you go beyond 16 channels the assignments will be tricky unless some type of auto location of speaker positions is utilized (yeh, yeh, Trinnov has this). Then it won't matter which terminal you connect to, the speaker set up routine will set that speaker up correctly. Either that or someone is going to have to come up with some creative descriptive names for some of these possible weird speaker locations. Emotiva, how are you going to do this for 24 or is it 28 speakers? Disclaimer: Please note, this '*bleep*' does not own an RMC-1 yet. Interested in this as well. In object based audio setups it would make sense, that every speaker has a number and three coordinates (or 2 angle and one distance) Examble: Speaker12 x=1.33m y=2.64m z=4.72m. Speaker12 r=3m polar=15° azimut=18° At the moment almost every processor has pre set angles for speaker positions and only the distance can be modified. Btw: @mgbuff the choice "extra subs vs wides" is actually "heigt vs extra subs" for rmc1 which is disappointing because for alignment and eq of the subs an external dsp must be used, even the rmc has enough outputs. This is also why the assignment discussion was started.
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Sept 19, 2019 11:18:28 GMT -5
1. Owners vs Owners: Not good. 2. Owners vs Non-Owners: See 1 above. 3. Owners vs EMO: ok I would put it ... Loungers vs Loungers: Not Good Loungers vs Issues: Good
|
|
mgbpuff
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,047
Member is Online
|
Post by mgbpuff on Sept 19, 2019 11:23:50 GMT -5
Internally, Dolby Atmos treats objects as actual objects in 3D space. In the mastering software, each object can be assigned X/Y/Z coordinates, a level, and a size. In some of the very early descriptions of the Atmos technology it was actually assumed that "you would be able to put speakers wherever you wanted to, tell the system where your speakers were, and it would figure it all out".
(From a programming perspective it's certainly possible to do this... and we do it all the time in 3D graphics applications.)
However, when you're talking about actual channels, and actual speakers, in an actual room, this turns out to be impractical for several reasons. For one thing, the calculations for "arbitrary speaker locations" are far more complicated than the calculations for a list of pre-specified speaker setups. It's not as simple as calculating the position of each speaker - and then just "adjusting a few numbers to move it"... ... because you also have to calculate every distance, and every reflection, from every surface in the room, and how these all affect our perception of objects in 3D space. And, for another thing, it's obvious that some speaker layouts work well, while some do not. To take that to the absurd, having ten speakers, but all on the left side of the room, isn't likely to work very well. And, if someone decides to put two ceiling speakers, both in the front top left corner, you aren't going to be able to "fix it with processing".
Once you say "you can put the speakers wherever you want" you have to start checking for and ruling out "silly choices" and even "choices that just don't work very well". When the dust settles you always end up with "a list of locations that you know will work well" and a system that strongly encourages you to pick one from the list.
And, finally, as it turns out, most people actually do prefer some sort of guidance. Everyone would love to imagine that they can: "Just put the speakers wherever you want and the system will make them sound perfect." (And, if you believe that, I've got some winning lottery numbers to sell you.)
But nobody wants to hear: "Well, you can put the speakers anywhere you like, but of course some places will sound better than others. Good luck with that."
As you've probably noticed, when the home version of Dolby Atmos was released, it included a relatively short list of suggested speaker placements... And this is as per the established guidelines for "complying with the license and offering the recommended options and choices"
(When it comes down to it, nobody really wants us to offer you the option of spending a lot of money, making horrible choices, and ending up with a system that sounds bad.)
As a demand is seen for more options, more options are perfected and tested, and then added to the list.
Interested in this as well. In object based audio setups it would make sense, that every speaker has a number and three coordinates (or 2 angle and one distance) Examble: Speaker12 x=1.33m y=2.64m z=4.72m. Speaker12 r=3m polar=15° azimut=18° At the moment almost every processor has pre set angles for speaker positions and only the distance can be modified. Btw: @mgbuff the choice "extra subs vs wides" is actually "heigt vs extra subs" for rmc1 which is disappointing because for alignment and eq of the subs an external dsp must be used, even the rmc has enough outputs. This is also why the assignment discussion was started. Absurd - people know by observation the seesaw doesn't work if everyone sits on the same side. So how is Emo going to handle the assignment of 17 to 28 speakers?
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Sept 19, 2019 11:28:38 GMT -5
Bed channels aren’t meant to be moved so I don’t think people would suggest random custom assignments for at least those. There’s a whole thread created for this type of discussion though so let’s give the guys who want to discuss their technical issues on usability this one.
|
|
mgbpuff
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,047
Member is Online
|
Post by mgbpuff on Sept 19, 2019 11:40:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Sept 19, 2019 11:44:31 GMT -5
There was lag from when we heard of the 11.1.8 support and their pdf online. I’m an owner and I’m just trying to respect the fact that there are two relevant threads and one with people who want to focus on their system getting the kinks out and the other that specifically deals with what we want the system to incorporate in the future. No one is trying to argue.
|
|
mgbpuff
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,047
Member is Online
|
Post by mgbpuff on Sept 19, 2019 11:56:10 GMT -5
There was lag from when we heard of the 11.1.8 support and their pdf online. I’m an owner and I’m just trying to respect the fact that there are two relevant threads and one with people who want to focus on their system getting the kinks out and the other that specifically deals with what we want the system to incorporate in the future. No one is trying to argue. Then quit extending these types of discussions yourself. The other thread has disappeared from the 1st page of newest threads because of lack of posts.
|
|
mgbpuff
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,047
Member is Online
|
Post by mgbpuff on Sept 19, 2019 12:07:50 GMT -5
O.K. I apologize for posting here again as I am not an owner. Bonzo made this clear, but in my interest in the RMC-1 and all the activity here, I forgot. I guess I'll have to curtail my interest in the RMC-1 and start seriously looking at alternatives with friendlier owners, maybe with a product with fewer problems.
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Sept 19, 2019 12:45:12 GMT -5
So with all of the back and forth concerning speaker/sub-woofer output count, and where some are looking for asiagnabilty of the xlr output I keep asking myself the following:
How big are these peoples rooms? seriously where do you put all of tease speakers in an average size room?
the multiple sub thing throws me off a bit too. Given that the frequency response typically is non-directional so why not get a sub that can handle the room and or content?
Not bashing anyone just trying to make sens of it.
I have a 16.6 ft by 27.5 ft purpose built theater. My Current layout is 7.1.6. I simply don't have enough room to add width channels and have separation from my fronts. (glad other people do!)
I am running Paradigm signature 8s as my fronts, a Signature c5 for the center and signature adp 1s for the 4 surrounds (dipole)
A signature Sub 1 for a sub woofer. When the RMC-1 replaced my Anthem D2v I added 6 Goldenear invisa HTR 7000 overhead.
And then there is amplification. amps take up space too
Just seems that in most rooms that are not dedicated theaters its hard enough to pull off a 7.1.2 setup
|
|
timg
Minor Hero
Posts: 68
|
Post by timg on Sept 19, 2019 12:54:34 GMT -5
Multiple subs = flatter response, reduced distortion, greater headroom, etc.
I'm planning on a row of 4x subs under my riser just behind my front row. Then, I'll likely add another set of subs at the front of the room. Since they're in significantly different places, they need different time delays. They're also likely to be very different designs, so they would need different EQ settings.
Regarding room size, mine's the same size as yours (~16.5 x 27). Also a dedicated theater. I went 9.x.6. My speakers are inside the walls/ceiling so that I lose a minimal amount of space. Only the front speakers sit within the room and they're behind the screen. The front wides are ~6' in front of my front speakers and ~6' ahead of my side speakers. Since they're in the side walls, they're almost like a forward location surround speaker, though the angles put them within Dolby guidelines for my average listening position (based on the first two rows).
Tim
|
|
|
Post by davidl81 on Sept 19, 2019 13:09:23 GMT -5
So with all of the back and forth concerning speaker/sub-woofer output count, and where some are looking for asiagnabilty of the xlr output I keep asking myself the following: How big are these peoples rooms? seriously where do you put all of tease speakers in an average size room? the multiple sub thing throws me off a bit too. Given that the frequency response typically is non-directional so why not get a sub that can handle the room and or content? Not bashing anyone just trying to make sens of it. I have a 16.6 ft by 27.5 ft purpose built theater. My Current layout is 7.1.6. I simply don't have enough room to add width channels and have separation from my fronts. (glad other people do!) I am running Paradigm signature 8s as my fronts, a Signature c5 for the center and signature adp 1s for the 4 surrounds (dipole) A signature Sub 1 for a sub woofer. When the RMC-1 replaced my Anthem D2v I added 6 Goldenear invisa HTR 7000 overhead. And then there is amplification. amps take up space too Just seems that in most rooms that are not dedicated theaters its hard enough to pull off a 7.1.2 setup I’m in the same boat as you room size wise. I find 7.4 to be fine. Maybe I could do 7.6, but since the 4 overheads are already cut and I’m place I don’t know if it makes sense to add two more. Sub wise I find the second (or more) sub really helps get rid of dead zones in the room. It doesn’t “hit harder”, but it’s just smoother through the whole room, at least to my ears.
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Honorary Emofest Scribe
Posts: 14,776
|
Post by klinemj on Sept 19, 2019 13:51:32 GMT -5
So, I'm confused over all this talk about assignable outputs. I don't see why it's such a big deal. I mean, I could plug my FR/FL speakers into the back surround outputs and they will work - I just need to make sure that I set the controls appropriately (crossover, level, phase, etc.). The device is "dumb" in that it doesn't know what is really connected, so...I can do whatever I want with "assignments".
Could it be more user-friendly and be able to vary it from a software point of view? Sure. Does it have to be software based for me to be able to "assign" outputs? No.
So, what am I missing?
Mark
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Honorary Emofest Scribe
Posts: 14,776
|
Post by klinemj on Sept 19, 2019 13:53:45 GMT -5
PS - I'm not an owner, so I shouldn't post here. Sorry Bonzo! Mark
|
|