RMC-1

[amaheshw]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but everytime I have spoken with Emo over the phone, they have denied that they have any plans to create an "RMC" or other flagship processor above the XMC. They said that this was just a rumor started on these boards. I want one as badly as anyone here, but unfortunately it does not appear to be coming. My last call with Emo on this topic was back in March, and I doubt much has changed.

[Flunk]

Sept 6, 2013 15:04:23 GMT -5 amaheshw said:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but everytime I have spoken with Emo over the phone, they have denied that they have any plans to create an "RMC" or other flagship processor above the XMC. They said that this was just a rumor started on these boards. I want one as badly as anyone here, but unfortunately it does not appear to be coming. My last call with Emo on this topic was back in March, and I doubt much has changed.

March 2013, that is ages ago with these people. Don't you know that Lonnie invented Warp speed when he was in kindergarden.

/Flunk

btw, welcome to the house of blue lights. 

[chaosrv]

We're more or less using "RMC-1" as a placeholder name until the reference level Pre/pro is released or the real name is divulged. But it has pr

That said, it is no rumor that Emotiva does plan on a reference level product but we won't see much (if any) truly concrete info until after the XMC-1 is out the door. (which will not be until February 2014)

So when you call and ask about the RMC-1, they could be telling the truth that there is no such product by that name while there is still reference pre/pro in the works.

There have been reports on the forum of members speaking to Dan (and possibly Lonnie) about the RMC-1 so at least one or two people at Emotiva know that is what we're calling it at least for the time being.

[klinemj]

amaheswa...go see the Emofest note in the Green Room. We directly asked and they did say they are working on a higher level pre/pro and provided some limited details on their thinking (see notes for what they said). So, whether it's called the RMC-1 or something else, who knows? And, whether it actually comes to market or when and at what prices...who knows? But, they openly said their are working on a higher level pre/pro. They also said that when they are done with the XMC-1, that their resources working on it will begin working on 2 new pre/pro's based on the XMC's platform. And, with other things they said, that sure sounds like a higher end version as well as a lower end version (possibly a version priced mid-way between the XMC and UMC-200 as they previously called a UMC-500).

Time will tell...meanwhile, we'll have to wait for more details.

Mark

[Jim]

Sept 6, 2013 15:38:55 GMT -5 klinemj said:

amaheswa...go see the Emofest note in the Green Room. We directly asked and they did say they are working on a higher level pre/pro and provided some limited details on their thinking (see notes for what they said). So, whether it's called the RMC-1 or something else, who knows? And, whether it actually comes to market or when and at what prices...who knows? But, they openly said their are working on a higher level pre/pro. They also said that when they are done with the XMC-1, that their resources working on it will begin working on 2 new pre/pro's based on the XMC's platform. And, with other things they said, that sure sounds like a higher end version as well as a lower end version (possibly a version priced mid-way between the XMC and UMC-200 as they previously called a UMC-500).

Time will tell...meanwhile, we'll have to wait for more details.

Mark

It would not surprise me, that regardless of what it's called........ Dan might be much more tight lipped about when/how/why/features/how much/etc.

I'm sure there will be something, we just may not get as much notice (and as much time to gossip).

[klinemj]

Yep...thanks to the criticism he's gotten for opening sharing his vision in the past, we're due for limited info. I will take what I can get and be happy.

Mark

[Topend]

Maybe once the XMC-1 is released they will formally mention the RMC-1. The reason I suspect this is the complex development will be done as it is based around the XMC-1 and I'm guessing the work required to bring the RMC-1 to market will be less susceptible to unforeseen problems.

Cheers,
Dave.

[Erwin.BE]

Sept 6, 2013 17:18:18 GMT -5 Topend said:

... the complex development will be done as it is based around the XMC-1 and I'm guessing the work required to bring the RMC-1 to market will be less susceptible to unforeseen problems.

Cheers,
Dave.

I reckon this too. RMC-1 would probably be 12 channel (9.3 was mentioned) while the XMC-1 will be 9 channel (7.2) but that's probably not complicating things. The big upgrade besides maybe the use of some higher quality parts here and there would be that the RMC-1 is allegedly going to be fully differential on all channels instead of only stereo (L+R) on the XMC-1. That is stuff that simply costs more, but since it's in the analogue domain, is no biggie for the Emotiva developers.

BTW: 3 sub channels is a bit of an odd number, don't you agree? A room usually has four walls and four corners. Mid-wall position on four walls or a sub in each corner is deemed good practice. To be honest: 11.4 would be my goal. But maybe that is just pushing things.

And who is that amaheshw type anyway, thinking he can come here and put on a first post like that?

[deewan]

My personal opinion, amaheshw might be a troller. His first post is knocking down a product that Dan has spoken about to customers. amaheshw has called Emotiva several times and every time asked about a product in development, yet has never posted on the forum until now??? If he follows threads at all, especially about the XMC, he should know Emo now shares less about products in development. I'm guessing a few months from now amaheshw will still have just one post, trying to cast doubt in the mind of lounge members or just trying to get a rise out of other members. And with my post, he has accomplished his role.

[jerrin]

Sept 6, 2013 15:29:50 GMT -5 chaosrv said:

We're more or less using "RMC-1" as a placeholder name until the reference level Pre/pro is released or the real name is divulged. But it has pr

That said, it is no rumor that Emotiva does plan on a reference level product but we won't see much (if any) truly concrete info until after the XMC-1 is out the door. (which will not be until February 2014)

So when you call and ask about the RMC-1, they could be telling the truth that there is no such product by that name while there is still reference pre/pro in the works.

There have been reports on the forum of members speaking to Dan (and possibly Lonnie) about the RMC-1 so at least one or two people at Emotiva know that is what we're calling it at least for the time being.

Just to start, I am not particularly important, nor do I have any "special relationship" with Big Dan or Lonnie.

That said.... I found out about the RMC in 2009. Over the years, on several occasions in person, I have spoken to the powers that be on the Reference pre-pro. Most of what I was told I shared. A couple of things I was asked to keep to myself, which I have done. There is no doubt in my mind that it is coming and I think Chaosrv said it correctly. There currently is no "RMC", but there will be a reference line pre-pro.

All that is a long way of saying when the reservation list opens, and Big Dan told me it would be sometime in the near future, my name will be on it.

[emovac]

Sept 6, 2013 23:35:14 GMT -5 jerrin said:

Sept 6, 2013 15:29:50 GMT -5 chaosrv said:

We're more or less using "RMC-1" as a placeholder name until the reference level Pre/pro is released or the real name is divulged. But it has pr

That said, it is no rumor that Emotiva does plan on a reference level product but we won't see much (if any) truly concrete info until after the XMC-1 is out the door. (which will not be until February 2014)

So when you call and ask about the RMC-1, they could be telling the truth that there is no such product by that name while there is still reference pre/pro in the works.

There have been reports on the forum of members speaking to Dan (and possibly Lonnie) about the RMC-1 so at least one or two people at Emotiva know that is what we're calling it at least for the time being.

Just to start, I am not particularly important, nor do I have any "special relationship" with Big Dan or Lonnie.

That said.... I found out about the RMC in 2009. Over the years, on several occasions in person, I have spoken to the powers that be on the Reference pre-pro. Most of what I was told I shared. A couple of things I was asked to keep to myself, which I have done. There is no doubt in my mind that it is coming and I think Chaosrv said it correctly. There currently is no "RMC", but there will be a reference line pre-pro.

All that is a long way of saying when the reservation list opens, and Big Dan told me it would be sometime in the near future, my name will be on it.

A lot has happened since 2009. I doubt you'll see significant discussion of pre-product release information in the foreseeable future.

[klinemj]

Erwin and Dave...you are reckoning right regarding the derivatives of the XMC being easier than the X.

There were specific comments about that at Emofest (see Emofest note, post #1 for details).

It is also quite telling that last year they talked a mid-way price point processor positioned between theUMC-200 and XMC-1 and were calling it UMC-500 and it was Cirrus based. Now, it's TI based like the XMC. I suspect the ease of doing a spinoff on that platform was one key driver.

Mark

[jevans64]

Sept 6, 2013 18:33:20 GMT -5 Erwin.BE said:

BTW: 3 sub channels is a bit of an odd number, don't you agree? A room usually has four walls and four corners. Mid-wall position on four walls or a sub in each corner is deemed good practice. To be honest: 11.4 would be my goal. But maybe that is just pushing things.

Denon did this years ago in their flagship receiver. I have a Denon 5308ci that is 9.3. The 3rd subwoofer output can be used for a 3rd sub OR transducers ( bass shakers, Buttkickers ) and there is a menu option to tailor the output for transducers when running two subs. Honestly, ANY future reference pre-pro should come standard with Dolby Atmos or similar processing since that will probably be a home standard within the next couple of years -- or sooner. That means going WAY beyond 11.x as Atmos is scalable to 64 speakers. Obviously, 64 speakers would be impractical in a home setting unless one wants their room to look like the speaker section in a Guitar Center store, but maybe 22.x would be enough to mimic an Atmos theater.

[jerrin]

Sept 7, 2013 10:09:26 GMT -5 jevans64 said:

Sept 6, 2013 18:33:20 GMT -5 Erwin.BE said:

BTW: 3 sub channels is a bit of an odd number, don't you agree? A room usually has four walls and four corners. Mid-wall position on four walls or a sub in each corner is deemed good practice. To be honest: 11.4 would be my goal. But maybe that is just pushing things.

Denon did this years ago in their flagship receiver. I have a Denon 5308ci that is 9.3. The 3rd subwoofer output can be used for a 3rd sub OR transducers ( bass shakers, Buttkickers ) and there is a menu option to tailor the output for transducers when running two subs. Honestly, ANY future reference pre-pro should come standard with Dolby Atmos or similar processing since that will probably be a home standard within the next couple of years -- or sooner. That means going WAY beyond 11.x as Atmos is scalable to 64 speakers. Obviously, 64 speakers would be impractical in a home setting unless one wants their room to look like the speaker section in a Guitar Center store, but maybe 22.x would be enough to mimic an Atmos theater.

Totally agreed. I plan on incorporating Atmos in my next HT design.

I've done some work with an acoustical engineer who is affiliated with several key workers at Atmos. I've been told that depending on the size of the room, in general, 16 channels would be enough to give a seamless pan and enveloping sound.

[cwt]

Sept 7, 2013 10:09:26 GMT -5 jevans64 said:

Denon did this years ago in their flagship receiver. I have a Denon 5308ci that is 9.3. The 3rd subwoofer output can be used for a 3rd sub OR transducers ( bass shakers, Buttkickers ) and there is a menu option to tailor the output for transducers when running two subs. Honestly, ANY future reference pre-pro should come standard with Dolby Atmos or similar processing since that will probably be a home standard within the next couple of years -- or sooner. That means going WAY beyond 11.x as Atmos is scalable to 64 speakers. Obviously, 64 speakers would be impractical in a home setting unless one wants their room to look like the speaker section in a Guitar Center store, but maybe 22.x would be enough to mimic an Atmos theater.

I would settle for 2 lfe channels ;even more so if utilizing some slave subwoofers a la seatons new upgraded plate amp replacement scheme More main channel speakers the better especially with mda object based downmixing to conform to the configuration you do have ::)The pressure will be off when the xmc1 is released and being an optomist and comments on the analog stages @ emofest iirc it won't be an eon this time
Still as eager as when jerrin posted this

emotivalounge.proboards.com/post/473626/quote/25861

[Jim]

Sept 7, 2013 11:22:31 GMT -5 jerrin said:

Sept 7, 2013 10:09:26 GMT -5 jevans64 said:

Denon did this years ago in their flagship receiver. I have a Denon 5308ci that is 9.3. The 3rd subwoofer output can be used for a 3rd sub OR transducers ( bass shakers, Buttkickers ) and there is a menu option to tailor the output for transducers when running two subs. Honestly, ANY future reference pre-pro should come standard with Dolby Atmos or similar processing since that will probably be a home standard within the next couple of years -- or sooner. That means going WAY beyond 11.x as Atmos is scalable to 64 speakers. Obviously, 64 speakers would be impractical in a home setting unless one wants their room to look like the speaker section in a Guitar Center store, but maybe 22.x would be enough to mimic an Atmos theater.

Totally agreed. I plan on incorporating Atmos in my next HT design.

I've done some work with an acoustical engineer who is affiliated with several key workers at Atmos. I've been told that depending on the size of the room, in general, 16 channels would be enough to give a seamless pan and enveloping sound.

While I get the excitement over Atmos, I'll take a processor that places quality over quantity. Processing and outputting 12, 16 or 64 speakers isn't cheap, or viable for most consumers.

Is there even a consumer implementation of Atmos? any media with an Atmos encoded track, or any hardware at all?

There is a difference between a reference processor, and a "bleeding edge" processor.... and I don't see Atmos getting much consumer traction for many years.

Look at how long it took for people to adopt 7.1? Many people are still using 5.1!

[rogersch]

Sept 7, 2013 12:10:00 GMT -5 Jim said:

There is a difference between a reference processor, and a "bleeding edge" processor.... and I don't see Atmos getting much consumer traction for many years.

Look at how long it took for people to adopt 7.1? Many people are still using 5.1!

Or even 2.0!

[jerrin]

Sept 7, 2013 12:10:00 GMT -5 Jim said:

Sept 7, 2013 11:22:31 GMT -5 jerrin said:

Totally agreed. I plan on incorporating Atmos in my next HT design.

I've done some work with an acoustical engineer who is affiliated with several key workers at Atmos. I've been told that depending on the size of the room, in general, 16 channels would be enough to give a seamless pan and enveloping sound.

While I get the excitement over Atmos, I'll take a processor that places quality over quantity. Processing and outputting 12, 16 or 64 speakers isn't cheap, or viable for most consumers.

Is there even a consumer implementation of Atmos? any media with an Atmos encoded track, or any hardware at all?

There is a difference between a reference processor, and a "bleeding edge" processor.... and I don't see Atmos getting much consumer traction for many years.

Look at how long it took for people to adopt 7.1? Many people are still using 5.1!

You are absolutely right Jim. I agree with quality over just extra channels. Moreover, it will be a few years (at least 2-3) before we get a form of ATMOS for the home. I was told though, that it is planned to make it (or a form of it) available for home use.

However, for me, the extra time doesn't matter. My next HT will serve me for 10-30 years, lord willing. So when designing, I'd like to make it as flexible and plan for as many speakers as I reasonably can and just add them as needed later. ATMOS is really an elegant way to do soundtracks.

[cwt]

Sept 7, 2013 12:10:00 GMT -5 Jim said:

While I get the excitement over Atmos, I'll take a processor that places quality over quantity. Processing and outputting 12, 16 or 64 speakers isn't cheap, or viable for most consumers.

Is there even a consumer implementation of Atmos? any media with an Atmos encoded track, or any hardware at all?

No atmos Jim but the opposition - if you can call it that being open source - yes www.2l.no/e-book/2L090.pdf . I like the sound of the object based codecs myself ;mainly because they modify themselves readily to the speakers you do have

[Erwin.BE]

I would love to implement atmos®. I even studied some schemes for our HT plans, see attachment. 14 channels + LFE would mean 16 channels and IMO be enough to do it. 9 floor speakers and 5 heights.

We drove to a cinema near Rotterdam (JT Vlaardingen) to see and hear atmos® for real (The Hobbit). It was an amazing experience!

But it isn't going to happen in the RMC-1 obviously. I'd settle for Auro-3D though (9.1 or 10.1 including top ceiling). They are partnering up with dts for cinema sound:

www.barco.com/en/News/Press-releases/barco-auro-technologies-and-dts-collaborate-in-support-of-proposed-new-open-format-for-immersive-obj.aspx

Attachments:

61 A4 Atmos™14.pdf (83.23 KB)