|
Post by alexreusch on Feb 5, 2019 1:46:36 GMT -5
Guys, I am a little bit confused. I always thought that the RMC-1L is based on it's big brother, the RMC-1 and the only difference is the missing expansion ports and therefore a smaller chassis. So I was assuming that the RMC-1L goes with 16-channels fix, but all fully balanced. Now, I hear in the YouTube videos, that the RMC-1L is only providing L/R/C channels as fully balanced. To my understanding, the XMC-2 does also provide fully balanced channels for L/R/C channels only. So what is the difference between the two systems, except the lower amount of channels (16 vs. 13)? Yes, I know they look slightly different on the front, but hey... that's it? I really don't need that many channels. I only run a 5.0 setup at home and have no plans to add more speakers. But I would like to have all channels balanced. Now just having to go for the largest system (RMC-1), just because the fully balanced configuration, would be a little overkill... What is also important for me, is the audio quality in two channels stereo mode. I want to connect an external DAC and true balanced stereo (Reference Stereo Mode) is really key for me. How about the two balanced input channels on both systems, are they equal in quality? If there is so little differentiation between the RMC-1L and XMC-2, why to have two different platforms? I don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Feb 5, 2019 6:15:37 GMT -5
Guys, I am a little bit confused. I always thought that the RMC-1L is based on it's big brother, the RMC-1 and the only difference is the missing expansion ports and therefore a smaller chassis. So I was assuming that the RMC-1L goes with 16-channels fix, but all fully balanced. Now, I hear in the YouTube videos, that the RMC-1L is only providing L/R/C channels as fully balanced. To my understanding, the XMC-2 does also provide fully balanced channels for L/R/C channels only. So what is the difference between the two systems, except the lower amount of channels (16 vs. 13)? Yes, I know they look slightly different on the front, but hey... that's it? A lot is still up in the air unfortunately. It comes down to what Dan said at CES Alex ; before his clarification it was expected that the RMC1L would be all channels dual differential like the RMC1 . As you say the RMC1L is now dual diff for the l/c/r and sub . He also said the next lower model [XMC2] would be L/R dual differential rather than L/C/R so scaling back the capabilities somewhat . Thankfully the most important channels for multichannel are the dual differential ones ; and balanced for a long sub run has its noise advantages. Why this configuration ? .. Cough tariffs? cough .. It should be noted that all of them whether single ended circuitry or not have balanced xlr outputs ; no rca's Its good that your 2ch usb dac can take advantage of the common mode noise reduction in the XMC2 or RMC1L . As to sound differences nobody knows as yet.
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Feb 5, 2019 8:18:03 GMT -5
Why balanced surrounds? Are you running active surrounds and need the noise reduction benefits of long XLR runs?
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,937
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 5, 2019 9:37:12 GMT -5
YouTube videos last forever.... while the world changes around them.
The latest information I have is that the RMC-1L will be the same as the RMC-1 EXCEPT for the lack of expansion bays.
And, yes, I suppose that might be subject to change in the future - but I doubt it.
The decision was made based largely on the fact that it required a lot of extra work to use an entirely different PCB for each.
Guys, I am a little bit confused. I always thought that the RMC-1L is based on it's big brother, the RMC-1 and the only difference is the missing expansion ports and therefore a smaller chassis. So I was assuming that the RMC-1L goes with 16-channels fix, but all fully balanced. Now, I hear in the YouTube videos, that the RMC-1L is only providing L/R/C channels as fully balanced. To my understanding, the XMC-2 does also provide fully balanced channels for L/R/C channels only. So what is the difference between the two systems, except the lower amount of channels (16 vs. 13)? Yes, I know they look slightly different on the front, but hey... that's it? I really don't need that many channels. I only run a 5.0 setup at home and have no plans to add more speakers. But I would like to have all channels balanced. Now just having to go for the largest system (RMC-1), just because the fully balanced configuration, would be a little overkill... What is also important for me, is the audio quality in two channels stereo mode. I want to connect an external DAC and true balanced stereo (Reference Stereo Mode) is really key for me. How about the two balanced input channels on both systems, are they equal in quality? If there is so little differentiation between the RMC-1L and XMC-2, why to have two different platforms? I don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Feb 5, 2019 9:45:22 GMT -5
Guys, I am a little bit confused. I always thought that the RMC-1L is based on it's big brother, the RMC-1 and the only difference is the missing expansion ports and therefore a smaller chassis. So I was assuming that the RMC-1L goes with 16-channels fix, but all fully balanced. Now, I hear in the YouTube videos, that the RMC-1L is only providing L/R/C channels as fully balanced. To my understanding, the XMC-2 does also provide fully balanced channels for L/R/C channels only. So what is the difference between the two systems, except the lower amount of channels (16 vs. 13)? Yes, I know they look slightly different on the front, but hey... that's it? A lot is still up in the air unfortunately. It comes down to what Dan said at CES Alex ; before his clarification it was expected that the RMC1L would be all channels dual differential like the RMC1 . As you say the RMC1L is now dual diff for the l/c/r and sub . He also said the next lower model [XMC2] would be L/R dual differential rather than L/C/R so scaling back the capabilities somewhat . Thankfully the most important channels for multichannel are the dual differential ones ; and balanced for a long sub run has its noise advantages. Why this configuration ? .. Cough tariffs? cough .. It should be noted that all of them whether single ended circuitry or not have balanced xlr outputs ; no rca's Its good that your 2ch usb dac can take advantage of the common mode noise reduction in the XMC2 or RMC1L . As to sound differences nobody knows as yet. What you say here is totally true, except it's also very misleading because we simply don't have all the facts yet. Up until Dan's sales pitch at CES, Dan, Lonnie, Keith and Hair Nick all previously, at some point in the past, confirmed what they were doing. The RMC-1L was to be almost the exact same as the RMC-1, minus the 3 expansion slots, which means 16 fully balanced channels, at a $4000 price point. The XMC-2 was to be 7.2.4 capable, with the LCR being fully balanced, at a $3000 price point. Then in walks a Big Dan sales pitch during the heat of the moment interview, and he changes things all around. What we simply don't know right now is, are these changes for real? They certainly could be considering Emotiva likes to change their mind like the wind. BUT, it could also just as easily be that Dan misspoke during the interview. Another thing that wouldn't be surprising from past history. So the FACT is, at this very moment, that we have not received confirmation either way from Emotiva since Big Dan's pitch, so we really don't know either way. It could just as easily be either. Another thing I find so typical here is that they could clear all this up with a simple post. Yet they haven't done that. Why? Because perhaps even THEY don't know what they are really doing yet? I dunno. But they are their own worst enemy.
|
|
|
Post by adaboy on Feb 5, 2019 9:48:01 GMT -5
A lot is still up in the air unfortunately. It comes down to what Dan said at CES Alex ; before his clarification it was expected that the RMC1L would be all channels dual differential like the RMC1 . As you say the RMC1L is now dual diff for the l/c/r and sub . He also said the next lower model [XMC2] would be L/R dual differential rather than L/C/R so scaling back the capabilities somewhat . Thankfully the most important channels for multichannel are the dual differential ones ; and balanced for a long sub run has its noise advantages. Why this configuration ? .. Cough tariffs? cough .. It should be noted that all of them whether single ended circuitry or not have balanced xlr outputs ; no rca's Its good that your 2ch usb dac can take advantage of the common mode noise reduction in the XMC2 or RMC1L . As to sound differences nobody knows as yet. What you say here is totally true, except it's also very misleading because we simply don't have all the facts yet. Up until Dan's sales pitch at CES, Dan, Lonnie, Keith and Hair Nick all previously, at some point in the past, confirmed what they were doing. The RMC-1L was to be almost the exact same as the RMC-1, minus the 3 expansion slots, which means 16 fully balanced channels, at a $4000 price point. The XMC-2 was to be 7.2.4 capable, with the LCR being fully balanced, at a $3000 price point. Then in walks a Big Dan sales pitch during the heat of the moment interview, and he changes things all around. What we simply don't know right now is, are these changes for real? They certainly could be considering Emotiva likes to change their mind like the wind. BUT, it could also just as easily be that Dan misspoke during the interview. Another thing that wouldn't be surprising from past history. So the FACT is, at this very moment, that we have not received confirmation either way from Emotiva since Big Dan's pitch, so we really don't know either way. It could just as easily be either. Another thing I find so typical here is that they could clear all this up with a simple post. Yet they haven't done that. Why? Because perhaps even THEY don't know what they are really doing yet? I dunno. But they are their own worst enemy. Keith just did, think while you were preparing this post.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Feb 5, 2019 9:49:02 GMT -5
YouTube videos last forever.... while the world changes around them. The latest information I have is that the RMC-1L will be the same as the RMC-1 EXCEPT for the lack of expansion bays. And, yes, I suppose that might be subject to change in the future - but I doubt it.
The decision was made based largely on the fact that it required a lot of extra work to use an entirely different PCB for each.
Guys, I am a little bit confused. I always thought that the RMC-1L is based on it's big brother, the RMC-1 and the only difference is the missing expansion ports and therefore a smaller chassis. So I was assuming that the RMC-1L goes with 16-channels fix, but all fully balanced. Now, I hear in the YouTube videos, that the RMC-1L is only providing L/R/C channels as fully balanced. To my understanding, the XMC-2 does also provide fully balanced channels for L/R/C channels only. So what is the difference between the two systems, except the lower amount of channels (16 vs. 13)? Yes, I know they look slightly different on the front, but hey... that's it? I really don't need that many channels. I only run a 5.0 setup at home and have no plans to add more speakers. But I would like to have all channels balanced. Now just having to go for the largest system (RMC-1), just because the fully balanced configuration, would be a little overkill... What is also important for me, is the audio quality in two channels stereo mode. I want to connect an external DAC and true balanced stereo (Reference Stereo Mode) is really key for me. How about the two balanced input channels on both systems, are they equal in quality? If there is so little differentiation between the RMC-1L and XMC-2, why to have two different platforms? I don't get it. I was typing my post while you typed. So basically what you are saying is that you are leaning on the side that Dan misspoke. That's the side I'm on too. But, you don't know for 100% sure. So we really need confirmation from Lonnie or Dan.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Feb 5, 2019 9:50:54 GMT -5
Keith just did, think while you were preparing this post. =1. Exactly. I bet we started typing at the same time. For once Keith's post was relatively short. Mine on the other hand was long, as usual. Hence, he got done before me.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,937
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 5, 2019 10:36:27 GMT -5
Hey, guys....... It's not a big conspiracy.
It really is just plain "possibly subject to change" at this point.
A lot is still up in the air unfortunately. It comes down to what Dan said at CES Alex ; before his clarification it was expected that the RMC1L would be all channels dual differential like the RMC1 . As you say the RMC1L is now dual diff for the l/c/r and sub . He also said the next lower model [XMC2] would be L/R dual differential rather than L/C/R so scaling back the capabilities somewhat . Thankfully the most important channels for multichannel are the dual differential ones ; and balanced for a long sub run has its noise advantages. Why this configuration ? .. Cough tariffs? cough .. It should be noted that all of them whether single ended circuitry or not have balanced xlr outputs ; no rca's Its good that your 2ch usb dac can take advantage of the common mode noise reduction in the XMC2 or RMC1L . As to sound differences nobody knows as yet. What you say here is totally true, except it's also very misleading because we simply don't have all the facts yet. Up until Dan's sales pitch at CES, Dan, Lonnie, Keith and Hair Nick all previously, at some point in the past, confirmed what they were doing. The RMC-1L was to be almost the exact same as the RMC-1, minus the 3 expansion slots, which means 16 fully balanced channels, at a $4000 price point. The XMC-2 was to be 7.2.4 capable, with the LCR being fully balanced, at a $3000 price point. Then in walks a Big Dan sales pitch during the heat of the moment interview, and he changes things all around. What we simply don't know right now is, are these changes for real? They certainly could be considering Emotiva likes to change their mind like the wind. BUT, it could also just as easily be that Dan misspoke during the interview. Another thing that wouldn't be surprising from past history. So the FACT is, at this very moment, that we have not received confirmation either way from Emotiva since Big Dan's pitch, so we really don't know either way. It could just as easily be either. Another thing I find so typical here is that they could clear all this up with a simple post. Yet they haven't done that. Why? Because perhaps even THEY don't know what they are really doing yet? I dunno. But they are their own worst enemy.
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Feb 5, 2019 10:49:14 GMT -5
Until Emotiva comes out with a product, there 'ain't no' product. Not only can we not tell them what to make; we can't tell them what to think about what to make. We can however throw up a lot of verbiage (of which this is a prime example ).
|
|
|
Post by musicfan on Feb 5, 2019 11:51:51 GMT -5
so if its still in the "possibly subject to change" stage...its nowhere near being released! thats a shame
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Feb 5, 2019 11:59:20 GMT -5
so if its still in the "possibly subject to change" stage...its nowhere near being released! thats a shame I was thinking the same thing. If the RMC-1L isn't just an RMC-1 minus the expansion module slots, then that means its a very different beast inside, does it not? And if its still being decided upon, aka subject to change, then that tells me its not finalized at all, and it will be quite some time before it makes it to production. Purely speculative hypothesizing of course.
|
|
|
Post by davidl81 on Feb 5, 2019 12:06:13 GMT -5
so if its still in the "possibly subject to change" stage...its nowhere near being released! thats a shame I was thinking the same thing. If the RMC-1L isn't just an RMC-1 minus the expansion module slots, then that means its a very different beast inside, does it not? And if its still being decided upon, aka subject to change, then that tells me its not finalized at all, and it will be quite some time before it makes it to production. Purely speculative hypothesizing of course. I think as Keith said it most likely will be the RMC-1 minus the expansion ports (make cost sense, both units would be basically the same inside thus being able to have a cost of scale savings). Now until they actually start taking people's money for these units Emotiva does not need to confirm anything about the unit. It is in their best interest to have flexibility in the units final design in case something unforeseen comes up and they want to make changes to the final product before it is released. Timing wise I think we all know at this point that Emotiva is going to be a little (lot) behind stated release times, this should not be a huge surprise to anyone on this board. And really right now their main focus should be to get the RMC-1 solid since the RMC-1L (and most likely the XMC-2) are both going to be running the same basic hardware and software. It would be foolish to release those products right now since they would have the same issues the RMC-1 has.
|
|
|
Post by alexreusch on Feb 5, 2019 12:22:24 GMT -5
YouTube videos last forever.... while the world changes around them. The latest information I have is that the RMC-1L will be the same as the RMC-1 EXCEPT for the lack of expansion bays. And, yes, I suppose that might be subject to change in the future - but I doubt it.
The decision was made based largely on the fact that it required a lot of extra work to use an entirely different PCB for each.
Thanks for the clarification! So the RMC-1L should then be fully balanced (16 channels). Makes sense. I do understand, that the XMC processors do have only XLR outputs, whether single ended circuitry or not. However, I do find this a little bit misleading. Why have all channels configured with XLR outputs, if the internal electronics of the processor do not support it? I would prefer RCA outputs for unbalanced channels. Then things are clear for everybody... Another recommendation: Use product code names (like: Lion, Tiger, Leopard etc.) for all stuff that is currently in development and which has not been released yet. Please stop using possible "official" product names for that products. It is not really helpful to move from " XMC-2" to " XMC-1 Gen3" and back to " XMC-2" or from " RMC-2" to " RMC-1L". All you do is creating chaos and confusion.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Feb 5, 2019 12:22:38 GMT -5
I think as Keith said it most likely will be the RMC-1 minus the expansion ports (make cost sense, both units would be basically the same inside thus being able to have a cost of scale savings). I concur. I would have agreed with you up until CES. Now I don't. Dan opened his mouth about possible big changes to what he and his crew had announced previously. You can't say one thing then say another and not expect it to cause issues. We should now get some sort of confirmation one way other. Either, "Hey kids, sorry I misspoke at CES," or, "Hey kids, we are changing things up a bit from what we announced before." I agree, to a point. Up to being for some more minor features, or what components are inside to make it work, yes. But don't go touting 16 fully balanced channels then take it down to 3. You are correct, it's not a surprise at all. +100. I agree. BUT, things like this have not stopped them before. I think the fact that they even released round 2 and now round 3 says a lot. IMO, it was wrong to do that. To make a bunch of people beta testers without announcing they would be beta testers also says a lot. It amazes me how many people here put so much "faith" in Emotiva. I consider THAT to be somewhat foolish, but I guess that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Feb 5, 2019 12:44:53 GMT -5
So basically what you are saying is that you are leaning on the side that Dan misspoke. That's the side I'm on too. But, you don't know for 100% sure. So we really need confirmation from Lonnie or Dan. Would be nice . Don't you find it fascinating that Dans complicated thought processes should be inclined to a rather specific curtailing of dual differential circuitry as you go down the line vs he simply misspoke Bonzo ? I like those sorts of possible insights into planning.. Anyway I hope your correct as that would once again put the RMC1L as the absolute value of the line ; whats the expression ? "hope springs eternal" And a common pcb would simplify things addmitedly
|
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,342
|
Post by Lsc on Feb 5, 2019 13:23:20 GMT -5
Until Emotiva comes out with a product, there 'ain't no' product. Not only can we not tell them what to make; we can't tell them what to think about what to make. We can however throw up a lot of verbiage (of which this is a prime example ). They had models on display at Axpona last April before they made these changes. So there is some basis. I’m expecting new prototypes this year but am really hoping that now that the RMC-1 is out that they’ll release the RMC-1L prior to Axpona. But I’m not holding my breath 😊.
|
|
|
Post by alexreusch on Feb 5, 2019 16:08:11 GMT -5
Why balanced surrounds? Are you running active surrounds and need the noise reduction benefits of long XLR runs? I am using highend speakers for my surround channels (Piega Coax). There are a only few audiophile multichannel recordings, but they exist and are a refreshing experience. Also, sometimes I just like to use "Multichannel Stereo Mode" also known as "All Stereo Mode". It depends on the situation... So what is wrong on having all channels fully balanced?
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Feb 5, 2019 16:59:21 GMT -5
Why balanced surrounds? Are you running active surrounds and need the noise reduction benefits of long XLR runs? I am using highend speakers for my surround channels (Piega Coax). There are a only few audiophile multichannel recordings, but they exist and are a refreshing experience. Also, sometimes I just like to use "Multichannel Stereo Mode" also known as "All Stereo Mode". It depends on the situation... So what is wrong on having all channels fully balanced? Nothing "wrong" just not really needed in non speaker powered situations so for me it would not be a determining factor if I choose a product. It is one of those diminishing returns type of spend for me.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,937
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 5, 2019 18:10:15 GMT -5
There seems to be a lot of confusion between "balanced connections", "unbalanced connections", "differential circuitry", and "circuitry that is not fully differential".
An UNBALANCED CONNECTION consists of a single signal line and a ground... and they generally use RCA connections for consumer equipment. Unbalanced connections work just fine. However, on extremely long cable runs, if the cable is poorly shielded, or if the environment is especially noisy, they can sometimes pick up noise and/or hum.
A BALANCED CONNECTION consists of two signal lines and a ground... and they generally use XLR connectors on consumer equipment. The two lines carry signals that are out of phase with each other... and the audio signal is actually the difference of these two signals at the receiving end.
The main benefit of balanced connections is that they tend to resist picking up noise, even on long runs, and even in noisy environments. EVERY XLR CONNECTOR ON EVERY PIECE OF EMOTIVA GEAR IS ATTACHED TO BALANCED INPUT OR OUTPUT CIRCUITRY THAT OFFERS THIS BENEFIT. (This is also true for most other gear - although there are a few oddball exceptions out there.)
A FULLY DIFFERENTIAL DEVICE OR CIRCUIT utilizes two entirely separate circuits to generate or amplify two entirely separate but equal and out of phase audio signals. So, for example, a fully differential stereo DAC has four outputs.... R+, R-, L+, and L- . Each pair of outputs are then combined in such a way that at least some of the distortion present in both of them tends to cancel out. The result is that, all else being equal, a fully differential circuit may have somewhat lower distortion, and the actual types of distortion it exhibits may be different. (Certain types of distortion are lower because they partially cancel out - while others remain the same.)
However, because most modern circuitry is very low in distortion, this benefit is often quite minimal - and overshadowed by other more important considerations.
In order for a piece of gear to be "fully balanced and fully differential" it must combine BOTH of these...
So, for example, the XMC-1 has a fully balanced fully differential front channel signal path.... You can send a balanced analog signal into a pair of balanced inputs, pass it through balanced differential analog circuitry, and send it out via balanced analog outputs.
HOWEVER, it is not at all uncommon for gear to offer one or the other and not both. For example, a preamp can provide both balanced inputs and balanced outputs, and give you the benefits of balanced connections for both, but still not have balanced differential circuitry inside. (On our XSP-1, you can have a fully balanced fully differential signal path for purist audio, but not for bass-managed audio... because the bass management filters are not fully differential.)
Likewise, a preamp could have balanced circuitry inside, yet still use unbalanced input and output connections.
The details become even more confusing with DACs.... NOBODY uses balanced digital audio signals.... neither standard PCM nor DSD signals carry balanced audio content.... there would be no practical benefit and it just isn't done.
However, if the DAC has differential outputs, then the output of the DAC is "fully differential".... which results in somewhat lower distortion. This means that, for each channel, the digital input data is used to generate a pair of equal but out of phase analog signals...
(However, because the distortion on modern DACs is already absurdly low, you may be talking about the difference between a THD of 0.003% and 0.002%.)
ALL of our gear that uses balanced connections and XLR connectors has them connected to fully balanced circuitry - which offers all of the benefits of balanced connections to other equipment. What we're talking about is which DACs inside the device have separate (-) and (+) differential outputs for each channel... and the resulting difference in performance. (The channels which have fully balanced fully differential DAC outputs will have slightly lower distortion and usually a slightly higher S/N.)
So we're talking about whether fully balanced DAC outputs were used on all the channels or "just the important channels".
From a purist point of view the difference is worthwhile... But it's really doubtful that it will be audible under most circumstances... especially on surrounds and height channels. Remember, we're talking about the difference between "very good" and VERY very good" in terms of both specs and sound quality.
YouTube videos last forever.... while the world changes around them. The latest information I have is that the RMC-1L will be the same as the RMC-1 EXCEPT for the lack of expansion bays. And, yes, I suppose that might be subject to change in the future - but I doubt it.
The decision was made based largely on the fact that it required a lot of extra work to use an entirely different PCB for each.
Thanks for the clarification! So the RMC-1L should then be fully balanced (16 channels). Makes sense. I do understand, that the XMC processors do have only XLR outputs, whether single ended circuitry or not. However, I do find this a little bit misleading. Why have all channels configured with XLR outputs, if the internal electronics of the processor do not support it? I would prefer RCA outputs for unbalanced channels. Then things are clear for everybody... Another recommendation: Use product code names (like: Lion, Tiger, Leopard etc.) for all stuff that is currently in development and which has not been released yet. Please stop using possible "official" product names for that products. It is not really helpful to move from " XMC-2" to " XMC-1 Gen3" and back to " XMC-2" or from " RMC-2" to " RMC-1L". All you do is creating chaos and confusion.
|
|