|
Post by Bonzo on Sept 17, 2019 11:42:02 GMT -5
Technology moves too fast for any one product to be upgradable for long. The cards in the RMC-1 do not look upgradable to me except for expansion slot add ons (none of which exist yet). I think the addition of new features is iffy at best, nice but not to be counted on. So contend yourselves with buying an affordable product that works with the technology existent with very high SQ. Any future FW improvements would be welcome, but don't expect them to be free. Remember this product is affordable vs $10.000 to $50,000 products which may or may not give you free upgrades. Emotiva, just make this product operationally solid for the features you have promised. The pie in the sky features some are asking for are for the next product, and please do not ever say that this is the last processor you will ever need because we all know that is illogical. Wow, we totally agree today. Must be a full moon. The only thing I would alter for me is, I do not feel the need for having instant up to the day latest greatest tech. I do not run out and buy the new iphone just because I have some physiological need to do so. Therefore, I do not need to have the absolute most up to date receiver or processor with every nuance and processing format available. Processors do not go out of date for me every 2-3 years. I am very happy skipping steps in the development chain, especially with surround sound, as every change since 5.1 has been incremental, not revolutionary. Besides, with all this crap being so up in the air with Atmos, DTS and Auro, and discs vs streaming. IMO it's not the best time to be making permanent decisions about which way the cookies will crumble and the dust will settle. If you can afford to buy a new $5000+ unit every few years, good for you. I'm not the type to do it even if I could afford it, but I can't, so I don't need to worry my bald head about it.
|
|
|
Post by SOWK on Sept 17, 2019 11:59:09 GMT -5
Let's be 100% real here.
DTS-X Pro Channel Expansion modules Dirac Live 2.0
are the only three "MUST" have items
AKA if the RMC-1 doesn't have the three above, people that want a new 16 channel processor just would not buy the RMC-1 if others on the market have DTS-X Pro and Emotiva does not. Also the ability to "expand" beyond 16 channels is the main reason people would even consider the RMC-1!
Way too many choices in the 16 channel game now.
The rest below are important but not deal breakers.
No I-max Enhanced... life will go on. No Auro 3D... life will go on. No Upmixer... life will go on.
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Sept 17, 2019 12:11:35 GMT -5
^^^ Agree 100%
|
|
richb
Sensei
Oppo Beta Group - Audioholics Reviewer
Posts: 858
|
Post by richb on Sept 17, 2019 13:11:26 GMT -5
I bought the Integra RDC-1 that was marketed as the Nostradamus of processors. There were no upgrades. There have been upgrades from Emotiva. At some, point, if for no other reason than parts availability, there will be an RCM-2 and XMC-3. Emotiva may once again offer a generous upgrade program. The other upgrade program is spelled: E B A Y - Rich
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Sept 17, 2019 13:45:47 GMT -5
I bought the Integra RDC-1 that was marketed as the Nostradamus of processors. There were no upgrades. There have been upgrades from Emotiva. At some, point, if for no other reason than parts availability, there will be an RCM-2 and XMC-3. Emotiva may once again offer a generous upgrade program. The other upgrade program is spelled: E B A Y - Rich Yes ; couldn't resist the rung down - an Integra DTR 10.5 ; so many promises made about the hdmi 1.1 card module that never came to replace the video switching only one Its enabled my restraint on a bleeding edge purchase here I would add to the dirac 2.0 must have the top tier of the dirac sub bass module to lose the mini dsp add on solution [ avoiding extra adc's dacs] and synching the RMC's 3 sub outs properly. Other CE's have listed this..
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Sept 17, 2019 14:46:43 GMT -5
Let's be 100% real here. DTS-X Pro Channel Expansion modules Dirac Live 2.0 are the only three "MUST" have items AKA if the RMC-1 doesn't have the three above, people that want a new 16 channel processor just would not buy the RMC-1 if others on the market have DTS-X Pro and Emotiva does not. Also the ability to "expand" beyond 16 channels is the main reason people would even consider the RMC-1! Way too many choices in the 16 channel game now. The rest below are important but not deal breakers. No I-max Enhanced... life will go on. No Auro 3D... life will go on. No Upmixer... life will go on. DTS-X Pro is brand new, has no movies to its credit and probably won't until sometime 2 or three years into the future. No processor includes it yet, including Trinnov. And, all those 'way too many choices in the 16 channel game now" now cost way to much compared the RMC-1.
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Sept 17, 2019 14:51:21 GMT -5
Technology moves too fast for any one product to be upgradable for long. The cards in the RMC-1 do not look upgradable to me except for expansion slot add ons (none of which exist yet). I think the addition of new features is iffy at best, nice but not to be counted on. So contend yourselves with buying an affordable product that works with the technology existent with very high SQ. Any future FW improvements would be welcome, but don't expect them to be free. Remember this product is affordable vs $10.000 to $50,000 products which may or may not give you free upgrades. Emotiva, just make this product operationally solid for the features you have promised. The pie in the sky features some are asking for are for the next product, and please do not ever say that this is the last processor you will ever need because we all know that is illogical. I thought the whole idea behind modularity was to be able to update connections via hdmi board and update codecs via software or Atmos/Dts decoding board/brain leaving further down the stream such as DAC’s able to be utilized with no end. The trinnov does this but the brain is much more malleable as software that changing that out shouldn’t have to occur I thought. I for one am not against proposing a new processing board if ever necessary to utilize down the chain more appropriately. This after all was Emotiva’s original plan to upgrade the XMC but with the RMC development it was abandoned. I don’t see why there would be a future RMC-2 that demands we abandon upgrading a processing board for 3 sufficient processors. Can a DAC be made obsolete and is there a strong case they will have to make it obsolete due to programming cost constraints? You want a A/V pre pro with the chops of a Trinnov for the cost of a chop (pork chop)! Dream on little dreamer.
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Sept 17, 2019 15:14:21 GMT -5
I thought the whole idea behind modularity was to be able to update connections via hdmi board and update codecs via software or Atmos/Dts decoding board/brain leaving further down the stream such as DAC’s able to be utilized with no end. The trinnov does this but the brain is much more malleable as software that changing that out shouldn’t have to occur I thought. I for one am not against proposing a new processing board if ever necessary to utilize down the chain more appropriately. This after all was Emotiva’s original plan to upgrade the XMC but with the RMC development it was abandoned. I don’t see why there would be a future RMC-2 that demands we abandon upgrading a processing board for 3 sufficient processors. Can a DAC be made obsolete and is there a strong case they will have to make it obsolete due to programming cost constraints? You want a A/V pre pro with the chops of a Trinnov for the cost of a chop (pork chop)! Dream on little dreamer. So you ignore my question and put words in my mouth? Does anyone else have an informed point of view on whether we should expect the DAC’s and the rest of of the unit to go obsolete or would it be probable that any future decoding board should have compatibility with this unit as well as its siblings? Like say if the RMC-2 was a 32 channel machine or even the same 16-28 with newer DAC chipsets would the complexity be high to have it be backwards compatible? I’m not sure how universal the signal that goes into something like a DAC is or even if with these expansions there’s a clear point where one could switch a decoding board without affecting Dirac hardware etc. I did buy into this for its future proof modularity so if someone actually knowledgeable knows the system breakdown and knows it’s a long shot with the inevitable future version it would be good to know. And it does sound like the immediate advantage to DTS:X Pro is the upmixing.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,928
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 17, 2019 16:07:48 GMT -5
In the real world there is ALWAYS a balance between practicality and cost. My Nissan Versa can be upgraded to a Rolls Royce. The cost of the upgrade will be the price of a new Rolls Royce - plus whatever it costs to move the license plate from one to the other.
There actually was a major hardware upgrade to the XMC-1.... the upgrade from HDMI 1.4b to HDMI 2.0.... and it cost far less than the cost of an entire new unit.
In the case of the Atmos processor upgrade for the XMC-1, it turned out that the cost of upgrading an XMC-1 would have been about the same as the cost of a new XMC-2. Therefore, we decided that most XMC-1 owners would prefer a whole new processor, to a single board upgrade to their original one.
We can't offer people a choice, because there are development costs unique to each option, so offering both options would cost more.
Also remember that, in some cases, designing a new part so that it will work with other outdated parts may cost far more than the cost of a new part designed to work with other current parts. For example, if you were to try to upgrade your vintage laptop computer to have a nice new SSD, you may find that a 512 gB IDE SSD costs more than a whole new computer.... (The new computer will have a 512 gB SATA SSD in it..... which are now quite cheap.... whereas old-style IDE SSD drives that large, such as would fit in your old laptop, are expensive and difficult to find.)
The RMC-1 is fully modular... which means that the circuitry is contained on several specialized boards... each of which can be changed separately. Therefore, it is at least possible to upgrade each board, if and when such an upgrade makes sense. This means that, for example, you will probably have the opportunity to upgrade it to HDMI 3.0 someday (if we can offer it to you at a cost that makes sense)
I thought the whole idea behind modularity was to be able to update connections via hdmi board and update codecs via software or Atmos/Dts decoding board/brain leaving further down the stream such as DAC’s able to be utilized with no end. The trinnov does this but the brain is much more malleable as software that changing that out shouldn’t have to occur I thought. I for one am not against proposing a new processing board if ever necessary to utilize down the chain more appropriately. This after all was Emotiva’s original plan to upgrade the XMC but with the RMC development it was abandoned. I don’t see why there would be a future RMC-2 that demands we abandon upgrading a processing board for 3 sufficient processors. Can a DAC be made obsolete and is there a strong case they will have to make it obsolete due to programming cost constraints? You want a A/V pre pro with the chops of a Trinnov for the cost of a chop (pork chop)! Dream on little dreamer.
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Sept 17, 2019 16:12:03 GMT -5
In the real world there is ALWAYS a balance between practicality and cost. My Nissan Versa can be upgraded to a Rolls Royce. The cost of the upgrade will be the price of a new Rolls Royce - plus whatever it costs to move the license plate from one to the other. There actually was a major hardware upgrade to the XMC-1.... the upgrade from HDMI 1.4b to HDMI 2.0.... and it cost far less than the cost of an entire new unit.
In the case of the Atmos processor upgrade for the XMC-1, it turned out that the cost of upgrading an XMC-1 would have been about the same as the cost of a new XMC-2. Therefore, we decided that most XMC-1 owners would prefer a whole new processor, to a single board upgrade to their original one.
We can't offer people a choice, because there are development costs unique to each option, so offering both options would cost more. Also remember that, in some cases, designing a new part so that it will work with other outdated parts may cost far more than the cost of a new part designed to work with other current parts. For example, if you were to try to upgrade your vintage laptop computer to have a nice new SSD, you may find that a 512 gB IDE SSD costs more than a whole new computer.... (The new computer will have a 512 gB SATA SSD in it..... which are now quite cheap.... whereas old-style IDE SSD drives that large, such as would fit in your old laptop, are expensive and difficult to find.)
The RMC-1 is fully modular... which means that the circuitry is contained on several specialized boards... each of which can be changed separately. Therefore, it is at least possible to upgrade each board, if and when such an upgrade makes sense. This means that, for example, you will probably have the opportunity to upgrade it to HDMI 3.0 someday (if we can offer it to you at a cost that makes sense)
You want a A/V pre pro with the chops of a Trinnov for the cost of a chop (pork chop)! Dream on little dreamer. Keith is right about all else except the Rolls Royce and Versa thing. Other than the fact both have 4 tires and a steering wheel, they are about as opposite a mission as can be. You cannot upgrade your Versa to a Rolls Royce as much as I can upgrade to the Terminator. Please stick with A/V Keith, we Car Junkies are going to lay a hating on you if you keep this up.LOL.
|
|
|
Post by davidl81 on Sept 17, 2019 16:21:44 GMT -5
You want a A/V pre pro with the chops of a Trinnov for the cost of a chop (pork chop)! Dream on little dreamer. So you ignore my question and put words in my mouth? Does anyone else have an informed point of view on whether we should expect the DAC’s and the rest of of the unit to go obsolete or would it be probable that any future decoding board should have compatibility with this unit as well as its siblings? Like say if the RMC-2 was a 32 channel machine or even the same 16-28 with newer DAC chipsets would the complexity be high to have it be backwards compatible? I’m not sure how universal the signal that goes into something like a DAC is or even if with these expansions there’s a clear point where one could switch a decoding board without affecting Dirac hardware etc. I did buy into this for its future proof modularity so if someone actually knowledgeable knows the system breakdown and knows it’s a long shot with the inevitable future version it would be good to know. And it does sound like the immediate advantage to DTS:X Pro is the upmixing. I don't see the actual DAC's being replaced on the RMC. I think that was the idea on the XMC-1 and it proved pretty difficult to do (ie Atmos on the XMC-1). It sounds like hardware wise based on post form Lonnie and Keith that the RMC-1 can handle DTS-X Pro, but who knows what comes after that. The only actual hardware I see maybe being replaced on the RMC-1 (XMC-2 as well) is the HDMI board if HDMI 2.1 becomes needed. It sounds like Dan has that in his head already.
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Sept 17, 2019 16:30:28 GMT -5
I agree. I can’t imagine there will be vastly different concepts from the current object audio but at the very least let’s say with the intro of the RMC-2 I would still hope a board swap here or there would allow me to effectively have an RMC-2 with my original 16-28 quad DAC’s and whatever other hardware doesn’t have to be swapped. I can see developments in the mixing with AI and ray traced audio coming but it’s hard to imagine a reason to develop a new codec that does something these object audio codecs already existing can’t.
I take it back about not asking for a Trinnov. The RMC-2 codec board (or RMC-3D, XMC-3D, etc)should allow for XYZ inputs to speakers for personalized layouts. One step closer to asking for a Trinnov capability with its associated cost. Easily a feature people would pay more for if needed if the cost could be kept down.
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Sept 18, 2019 8:20:04 GMT -5
Keith L - "The RMC-1 is fully modular... which means that the circuitry is contained on several specialized boards... each of which can be changed separately. Therefore, it is at least possible to upgrade each board, if and when such an upgrade makes sense."
Possible upgrade isn't a promise. But, modularity is also good for economical repair, which is desirable vs some of the 'all on one board' processor designs common to lower cost products. You'll get upgrades where they fall into practical technical and profitable possibility only. There is no end to possibilities but there is a constraint on practicalities.
There is one upgradable product that has been sold continuously since 1996 and that is the Theta Casablanca. It's base price however is well over $20,000 and the most recent upgrade boards cost as much or more than the entire RMC-1. Even so, it is not technologically up to par - only 12 channel and only HDMI2.0a, and only Atmos and DTS-X at the present state. It does have Dirac Live however. But in lieu of upgrades over the years there has been offers to upgrade to entirely new units where upgrade boards were no longer possible. The replacement offers were $4000 or $5000 off the new price only.
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Sept 18, 2019 9:48:43 GMT -5
Yeah I read Keith’s statement as there will be no promises like they did for the XMC-1 putting themselves in a spot where they feel obligated for a fair buyback. I’m optimistic but understand I could get burnt. Seems like a ways off before it will matter much.
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Sept 19, 2019 12:21:12 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. With storm audio’s introduction of 13.1.10 can we assume that has been vetted by Dolby and at some point supported with the RMC-1?
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Sept 20, 2019 8:44:05 GMT -5
I don’t want to beat a dead horse but the silence around what seems should be a simple answer has me worried. I read a little snippet about the new 32 channel storm audio prepro that has the ability to “decode up to 24”. Does this mean if Dolby develops 28 and 32 channel decoding layouts that the 32 channel product is still stuck at 24? Is this what we can expect? Is this a 28 channel prepro that has the ability to decode to only 20? To 24? Or all 28? It seems like if it’s supposed to handle decoding 28 we’d get the promise eventually it will support decoding 24. I’m just looking for clarity.
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Sept 20, 2019 10:06:56 GMT -5
I don’t want to beat a dead horse but the silence around what seems should be a simple answer has me worried. I read a little snippet about the new 32 channel storm audio prepro that has the ability to “decode up to 24”. Does this mean if Dolby develops 28 and 32 channel decoding layouts that the 32 channel product is still stuck at 24? Is this what we can expect? Is this a 28 channel prepro that has the ability to decode to only 20? To 24? Or all 28? It seems like if it’s supposed to handle decoding 28 we’d get the promise eventually it will support decoding 24. I’m just looking for clarity. I don't know the answer for sure but I think that products that rely on DSP chips are dependent for a certain level of coding from the chip supplier. 16 channels seems to be the max that these chips do without using multiple chips. The programing to use multiple chips is probably challenging. Also I know that some channels are maybe there for bi-amping speakers or for multiple subs or for matrixing. Also Storm uses TI chips, not the ADI chips that Emo uses.
|
|
|
Post by donh50 on Sept 20, 2019 12:17:39 GMT -5
Re-assignable outputs or a sub module to handle multiple subs transparently. Dirac Live with Bass Management, natch.
|
|
|
Post by tagmanz on Sept 20, 2019 16:03:27 GMT -5
Re-assignable outputs or a sub module to handle multiple subs transparently. Dirac Live with Bass Management, natch. +1
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Sept 20, 2019 17:56:30 GMT -5
I don’t want to beat a dead horse but the silence around what seems should be a simple answer has me worried. I read a little snippet about the new 32 channel storm audio prepro that has the ability to “decode up to 24”. Does this mean if Dolby develops 28 and 32 channel decoding layouts that the 32 channel product is still stuck at 24? Is this what we can expect? Is this a 28 channel prepro that has the ability to decode to only 20? To 24? Or all 28? It seems like if it’s supposed to handle decoding 28 we’d get the promise eventually it will support decoding 24. I’m just looking for clarity. I don't know the answer for sure but I think that products that rely on DSP chips are dependent for a certain level of coding from the chip supplier. 16 channels seems to be the max that these chips do without using multiple chips. The programing to use multiple chips is probably challenging. Also I know that some channels are maybe there for bi-amping speakers or for multiple subs or for matrixing. Also Storm uses TI chips, not the ADI chips that Emo uses. I might not be understanding what chips are in charge of decoding but one of nospam’s quotes of big Dan states the main system runs on a TI Sitara AM1808. “The Griffin Lite's internal A5's manage each chips housekeeping. The main system is controlled by a TI Sitara AM1808. This is a nice A9 running our Linux OS.”
|
|