|
Post by jagman on Apr 17, 2019 15:58:47 GMT -5
I have a 9.2.6 speaker setup, that will likely become 9.3.6, and I already have three XPA-5 Gen2 amps. I didn't realize this but it looks like the XPA Gen2 amps are not fully balanced. Given this limitation, aside from the expansion slots and the matching aesthetics in the RMC-1, what are the other practical differences between the 3 pre/pros? Obviously the two lesser ones will need something like a MiniDSP to handle multiple subs. I could for example get a 4x10 HD which has a sampling rate of 96kHz. That of course wouldn't be as elegant as the RMC-1 once the 4 channel expansion units are available (who knows when?), but it will be quite functional. Obviously each sub wouldn't have Dirac 2.0 individually applied, but the subs would be in time alignment and as a whole have Dirac 2.0 applied. I'm struggling to find any other differences.
|
|
|
Post by davidl81 on Apr 17, 2019 16:10:07 GMT -5
I have a 9.2.6 speaker setup, that will likely become 9.3.6, and I already have three XPA-5 Gen2 amps. I didn't realize this but it looks like the XPA Gen2 amps are not fully balanced. Given this limitation, aside from the expansion slots and the matching aesthetics in the RMC-1, what are the other practical differences between the 3 pre/pros? Obviously the two lesser ones will need something like a MiniDSP to handle multiple subs. I could for example get a 4x10 HD which has a sampling rate of 96kHz. That of course wouldn't be as elegant as the RMC-1 once the 4 channel expansion units are available (who knows when?), but it will be quite functional. Obviously each sub wouldn't have Dirac 2.0 individually applied, but the subs would be in time alignment and as a whole have Dirac 2.0 applied. I'm struggling to find any other differences. For the most part we really don't know the differences between the RMC-1L and the XMC-2. The RMC-1L is identical to the current RMC-1, except it does not have the space for expansion modules and is a physically shorter unit. Also the only amps that Emotiva currently makes that are "fully" balanced, not just having balanced inputs, are the DR line of amps. My understanding is that you still get some benefits of the fully balanced design from the RMC even if the amps are not fully balanced. FWIW I would not make any purchase depending on the expansion modules to solve any set up issue. We have no idea when those units will be available (could be 6 months, could be 2 years), and although Dan has mentioned several things they are looking at adding, the only thing that is basically confirmed is the ability to go up to 28 channels. We should know a lot more about the XMC and RMC differences once those units are actually up for sale, they are still really in the development phases of that processor at this point.
|
|
|
Post by jagman on Apr 17, 2019 17:25:35 GMT -5
I have a 9.2.6 speaker setup, that will likely become 9.3.6, and I already have three XPA-5 Gen2 amps. I didn't realize this but it looks like the XPA Gen2 amps are not fully balanced. Given this limitation, aside from the expansion slots and the matching aesthetics in the RMC-1, what are the other practical differences between the 3 pre/pros? Obviously the two lesser ones will need something like a MiniDSP to handle multiple subs. I could for example get a 4x10 HD which has a sampling rate of 96kHz. That of course wouldn't be as elegant as the RMC-1 once the 4 channel expansion units are available (who knows when?), but it will be quite functional. Obviously each sub wouldn't have Dirac 2.0 individually applied, but the subs would be in time alignment and as a whole have Dirac 2.0 applied. I'm struggling to find any other differences. For the most part we really don't know the differences between the RMC-1L and the XMC-2. The RMC-1L is identical to the current RMC-1, except it does not have the space for expansion modules and is a physically shorter unit. Also the only amps that Emotiva currently makes that are "fully" balanced, not just having balanced inputs, are the DR line of amps. My understanding is that you still get some benefits of the fully balanced design from the RMC even if the amps are not fully balanced. FWIW I would not make any purchase depending on the expansion modules to solve any set up issue. We have no idea when those units will be available (could be 6 months, could be 2 years), and although Dan has mentioned several things they are looking at adding, the only thing that is basically confirmed is the ability to go up to 28 channels. We should know a lot more about the XMC and RMC differences once those units are actually up for sale, they are still really in the development phases of that processor at this point. My take on this is either get the RMC-1 now (I have the 40% card) for $3k and use my MiniDSP 2x4 Balanced until the expansion units are released...but be able to enjoy it immediately... vs wait indefinitely for a XMC-2 and pair it with the 4x10 HD. The latter would save $1500 but probably not sound quite as good, it wouldn't have the sophistication or the upgradability, and there is no timeline for availability.
|
|
|
Post by davidl81 on Apr 17, 2019 17:57:57 GMT -5
For the most part we really don't know the differences between the RMC-1L and the XMC-2. The RMC-1L is identical to the current RMC-1, except it does not have the space for expansion modules and is a physically shorter unit. Also the only amps that Emotiva currently makes that are "fully" balanced, not just having balanced inputs, are the DR line of amps. My understanding is that you still get some benefits of the fully balanced design from the RMC even if the amps are not fully balanced. FWIW I would not make any purchase depending on the expansion modules to solve any set up issue. We have no idea when those units will be available (could be 6 months, could be 2 years), and although Dan has mentioned several things they are looking at adding, the only thing that is basically confirmed is the ability to go up to 28 channels. We should know a lot more about the XMC and RMC differences once those units are actually up for sale, they are still really in the development phases of that processor at this point. My take on this is either get the RMC-1 now (I have the 40% card) for $3k and use my MiniDSP 2x4 Balanced until the expansion units are released...but be able to enjoy it immediately... vs wait indefinitely for a XMC-2 and pair it with the 4x10 HD. The latter would save $1500 but probably not sound quite as good, it wouldn't have the sophistication or the upgradability, and there is no timeline for availability. Sounds like to me you have your answer. If you are good waiting till Christmas it may be worth waiting for the XMC-2 as I do think that processor will be the best “value”, but the 40% off card does make the two units much closer in price. You end up with a $1200 difference I. price.
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,261
|
Post by stiehl11 on Apr 17, 2019 20:18:40 GMT -5
You can use your 40% off card on either the XMC-1, XMC-2, RMC-1L, or RMC-1. If the current RMC-1 does not align the subs the way you like, the none of the other processors will either. The RMC-1L and XMC-2 are all RMC-1 based and are extremely similar to one another. So, go with what your wallet and cents tell you is the best decision. I fully expect from what I saw at AXPONA last weekend that the processors will be ready by end of Fall conservatively (may or may not have DIRAC ready).
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Apr 17, 2019 21:19:30 GMT -5
My take on this is either get the RMC-1 now (I have the 40% card) for $3k and use my MiniDSP 2x4 Balanced until the expansion units are released...but be able to enjoy it immediately... vs wait indefinitely for a XMC-2 and pair it with the 4x10 HD. The latter would save $1500 but probably not sound quite as good, it wouldn't have the sophistication or the upgradability, and there is no timeline for availability. You aren’t going to get any sonic benefit with quad differential surround channels. The amount of information and the type of information, along with the surround speaker type, placement/orientation to the listener, artificial mastering, conflicting other music/sound occuring in the other channels - at the same time - will immensely dwarf any small improvement that channel might have over an unbalanced amplified channel. You are way over thinking it. Simply pick the route that will make you the happiest. Either the one that saves you the most money and gives you the knowledge it is just as good as the pricey route, or the pricey route which gives you the most pride knowing you went all out and held nothing back. Note getting the RMC now you risk being frustrated with it’s numerous problems. I assume you are aware but just in case.
|
|
|
Post by dwa247 on Apr 18, 2019 18:03:21 GMT -5
You aren’t going to get any sonic benefit with quad differential surround channels. The amount of information and the type of information, along with the surround speaker type, placement/orientation to the listener, artificial mastering, conflicting other music/sound occuring in the other channels - at the same time - will immensely dwarf any small improvement that channel might have over an unbalanced amplified channel. Does that apply to only movie and TV content in surround sound or does that also apply to music mixed in surround sound on SACD, DVD-A, and Blu-ray discs? I'm just curious because I listen to a lot of music mixed in 5.1 surround sound. Certain music discs I have seem to spread out the music mix into the surround channels.
|
|
|
Post by jagman on Apr 19, 2019 15:16:02 GMT -5
My take on this is either get the RMC-1 now (I have the 40% card) for $3k and use my MiniDSP 2x4 Balanced until the expansion units are released...but be able to enjoy it immediately... vs wait indefinitely for a XMC-2 and pair it with the 4x10 HD. The latter would save $1500 but probably not sound quite as good, it wouldn't have the sophistication or the upgradability, and there is no timeline for availability. You aren’t going to get any sonic benefit with quad differential surround channels. The amount of information and the type of information, along with the surround speaker type, placement/orientation to the listener, artificial mastering, conflicting other music/sound occuring in the other channels - at the same time - will immensely dwarf any small improvement that channel might have over an unbalanced amplified channel. You are way over thinking it. Simply pick the route that will make you the happiest. Either the one that saves you the most money and gives you the knowledge it is just as good as the pricey route, or the pricey route which gives you the most pride knowing you went all out and held nothing back. Note getting the RMC now you risk being frustrated with it’s numerous problems. I assume you are aware but just in case. Generally I agree with you. A potential benefit of the RMS-1 is if it has Dirac 2.0 with the the Multi-Subwoofer Dirac Live Bass Management Module. That might be better than the MiniDSP route... but by how much who knows (if it will even be offered... or how long it will be until it's released)?
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Apr 19, 2019 16:54:13 GMT -5
]Generally I agree with you. A potential benefit of the RMS-1 is if it has Dirac 2.0 with the the Multi-Subwoofer Dirac Live Bass Management Module. That might be better than the MiniDSP route... but by how much who knows (if it will even be offered... or how long it will be until it's released)? Yep. I was just referring to your concern over your 3 XPA-5 G2 amps. There might be other reasons to go the RMC route as well, depending on if there are any processing or preamp differences under the hood, but like David mentioned we don't really know at this time. I would wait, obviously, but especially until things on all the platforms actually work well.
|
|
|
Post by jagman on Apr 19, 2019 17:01:58 GMT -5
I would wait, obviously, but especially until things on all the platforms actually work well. Amen
|
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,337
|
Post by Lsc on Apr 19, 2019 20:34:31 GMT -5
My take on this is either get the RMC-1 now (I have the 40% card) for $3k and use my MiniDSP 2x4 Balanced until the expansion units are released...but be able to enjoy it immediately... vs wait indefinitely for a XMC-2 and pair it with the 4x10 HD. The latter would save $1500 but probably not sound quite as good, it wouldn't have the sophistication or the upgradability, and there is no timeline for availability. I like your thinking of getting the RMC1 now and using your minidsp. I’ve been waiting for a year+ for the RMC1L/XMC2. Mainly bc the RMC1 is out of my price range and I only have the 25% off UFL. I’m going back and forth between the RMC1L and XMC2 and it will probably come down to which one is coming out sooner. But if I was in your shoes the RMC1 seems like the best option.
|
|
|
Post by aswiss on Apr 24, 2019 19:41:26 GMT -5
I have a 9.2.6 speaker setup, that will likely become 9.3.6, and I already have three XPA-5 Gen2 amps. I didn't realize this but it looks like the XPA Gen2 amps are not fully balanced. Given this limitation, aside from the expansion slots and the matching aesthetics in the RMC-1, what are the other practical differences between the 3 pre/pros? Obviously the two lesser ones will need something like a MiniDSP to handle multiple subs. I could for example get a 4x10 HD which has a sampling rate of 96kHz. That of course wouldn't be as elegant as the RMC-1 once the 4 channel expansion units are available (who knows when?), but it will be quite functional. Obviously each sub wouldn't have Dirac 2.0 individually applied, but the subs would be in time alignment and as a whole have Dirac 2.0 applied. I'm struggling to find any other differences. Check the Video with Dan L. from Axpona 2019 - he is explaining the main differences of RMC-1 / everything is known. 4999$ RMC-1L (Light) - smaller case (looks same than XMC-2) same funktionality, but none of the 3 Upgrade Module Slots available - but 9.1.6 fully balanced on all Channels. / 3999$ XMC-2 - smaller case, 9.1.6, but only Front (L/C/R + SUB) are fully balanced (According the Axpona Video).
|
|
|
Post by petew on Apr 24, 2019 20:44:17 GMT -5
XMC-2 will be 9.1.6. Too lazy to look up a link to a verifiable source though.
|
|
|
Post by dragonV on Apr 25, 2019 6:31:12 GMT -5
This is by no means an Emotiva exclusive problem....BUT...Can they really afford to wait too much longer with the RMC-1L and XMC-2 releases??? We know how quickly things change in this game, and how quickly things are superceded. The now cancelled Dolby Atmos/Dts-x XMC-1 upgrade just shows that even with the best intentions, most things have a useby date. (Big thumbs up for the way Emotiva has looked after XMC-1 owners with that awesome trade in deal though). I am sure this played a part in the RMC-1 release timing even with its expansion bays, but could be even more important with the RMC-1L/XMC-2 as the weeks tick by..... I don't know about this announcing products that then take an eternity to actually become available (if at all)...under promise and over deliver safer? Emotiva is faaaar from alone in this game.
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Apr 25, 2019 8:24:49 GMT -5
This is by no means an Emotiva exclusive problem....BUT...Can they really afford to wait too much longer with the RMC-1L and XMC-2 releases??? We know how quickly things change in this game, and how quickly things are superceded. The now cancelled Dolby Atmos/Dts-x XMC-1 upgrade just shows that even with the best intentions, most things have a useby date. (Big thumbs up for the way Emotiva has looked after XMC-1 owners with that awesome trade in deal though). I am sure this played a part in the RMC-1 release timing even with its expansion bays, but could be even more important with the RMC-1L/XMC-2 as the weeks tick by..... I don't know about this announcing products that then take an eternity to actually become available (if at all)...under promise and over deliver safer? Emotiva is faaaar from alone in this game. Its well to observe the opposition with this dragonv as you say At the moment you have 1 reasonably priced 9.1.6 option available-the acurus muse 16 and another ;the monoprice htp1 which has been delayed With the muse its either its Aspect peq room eq or wait for dirac [2.0 ?] with Emo .. So its not cut and dried depending on capabilities which you may prefer Note as well ;the acurus uses a db9 > xlr connector to achieve its extra 4 channels so it is lucky some foresight was given or it too would be limited to 7.1.4 ..Now the RMC1 is a lot better ; its up to Dirac to get their crap together as the next Emo's are heavily based on the RMC1 so coding will hopefully be more familiar ..
|
|
|
Post by davidl81 on Apr 25, 2019 8:55:39 GMT -5
This is by no means an Emotiva exclusive problem....BUT...Can they really afford to wait too much longer with the RMC-1L and XMC-2 releases??? We know how quickly things change in this game, and how quickly things are superceded. The now cancelled Dolby Atmos/Dts-x XMC-1 upgrade just shows that even with the best intentions, most things have a useby date. (Big thumbs up for the way Emotiva has looked after XMC-1 owners with that awesome trade in deal though). I am sure this played a part in the RMC-1 release timing even with its expansion bays, but could be even more important with the RMC-1L/XMC-2 as the weeks tick by..... I don't know about this announcing products that then take an eternity to actually become available (if at all)...under promise and over deliver safer? Emotiva is faaaar from alone in this game. Its well to observe the opposition with this dragonv as you say At the moment you have 1 reasonably priced 9.1.6 option available-the acurus muse 16 and another ;the monoprice htp1 which has been delayed With the muse its either its Aspect peq room eq or wait for dirac [2.0 ?] with Emo .. So its not cut and dried depending on capabilities which you may prefer Note as well ;the acurus uses a db9 > xlr connector to achieve its extra 4 channels so it is lucky some foresight was given or it too would be limited to 7.1.4 ..Now the RMC1 is a lot better ; its up to Dirac to get their crap together as the next Emo's are heavily based on the RMC1 so coding will hopefully be more familiar .. Would the Marantz AV8805 not be considered reasonably priced? It’s MSRP is $4500, but it’s street price is $3500. Under the RMC-1L but over the XMC-2. Also it works so there is that
|
|
|
Post by dragonV on Apr 25, 2019 9:05:44 GMT -5
I want them all to be a huge success.....just hoping the announced ones arrive soon rather than late to the party! 👍👍👍
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Apr 25, 2019 12:49:32 GMT -5
Its well to observe the opposition with this dragonv as you say At the moment you have 1 reasonably priced 9.1.6 option available-the acurus muse 16 and another ;the monoprice htp1 which has been delayed With the muse its either its Aspect peq room eq or wait for dirac [2.0 ?] with Emo .. So its not cut and dried depending on capabilities which you may prefer Note as well ;the acurus uses a db9 > xlr connector to achieve its extra 4 channels so it is lucky some foresight was given or it too would be limited to 7.1.4 ..Now the RMC1 is a lot better ; its up to Dirac to get their crap together as the next Emo's are heavily based on the RMC1 so coding will hopefully be more familiar .. Would the Marantz AV8805 not be considered reasonably priced? It’s MSRP is $4500, but it’s street price is $3500. Under the RMC-1L but over the XMC-2. Also it works so there is that Sure the Marantz is fine if your happy with audyssey xt32 and certainly wouldn't begrudge anything that's reliable[ why I have a yam 5100 to put me over before I can go dirac] but I like to strictly compare like to like when it comes to channel capability and the Marantz and Denon 8500 come up short with 13 channels of processing So restrictions like 9.1.4 or 7.1.6 exist .. Others with 9.1.6 capability are considerably more ; like storm ; altitude 16 ;bryston;ati still coming etc
|
|
|
Post by davidl81 on Apr 25, 2019 13:30:08 GMT -5
Would the Marantz AV8805 not be considered reasonably priced? It’s MSRP is $4500, but it’s street price is $3500. Under the RMC-1L but over the XMC-2. Also it works so there is that Sure the Marantz is fine if your happy with audyssey xt32 and certainly wouldn't begrudge anything that's reliable[ why I have a yam 5100 to put me over before I can go dirac] but I like to strictly compare like to like when it comes to channel capability and the Marantz and Denon 8500 come up short with 13 channels of processing So restrictions like 9.1.4 or 7.1.6 exist .. Others with 9.1.6 capability are considerably more ; like storm ; altitude 16 ;bryston;ati still coming etc That is my mistake. For some reason I had in my head that the AV8805 was a 9.1.6 pre/pro, but it is 9.1.4.
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Apr 26, 2019 0:26:50 GMT -5
Sure the Marantz is fine if your happy with audyssey xt32 and certainly wouldn't begrudge anything that's reliable[ why I have a yam 5100 to put me over before I can go dirac] but I like to strictly compare like to like when it comes to channel capability and the Marantz and Denon 8500 come up short with 13 channels of processing So restrictions like 9.1.4 or 7.1.6 exist .. Others with 9.1.6 capability are considerably more ; like storm ; altitude 16 ;bryston;ati still coming etc That is my mistake. For some reason I had in my head that the AV8805 was a 9.1.6 pre/pro, but it is 9.1.4. Understandable .When I 1st saw the Marantz had the same griffin lite processors as the RMC1 I thought that was a more than reasonable option but then I concluded maybe the addition of the auro3d processing has had an effect there ;guessing though ? Or it may be the RMC1s separate ARM processor taking the strain off.. No expert here but . Then you have even more dsp processing in the extension modules so you can feasibly do active crossovers like trinnov and storm one day Patience is the key
|
|