RMC-1

[Jim]

Sept 11, 2013 12:19:38 GMT -5 amaheshw said:

Sept 11, 2013 10:04:48 GMT -5 Jim said:

I imagine if you want a quad-differential amp, you'll need the XPR-1 or XPA-1. The size of a multichannel amp in that configuration may be prohibitive (and my guess, exceedingly small market).

I'd be surprised if Emotiva is making one. I'm curious about the studio amp, that might be an option, depending on it's topology.

I didn't know that any Sherbourn gear used HDBaseT..

The ATI-based Outlaw 7500/7500 and 7900 amps are multichannel amps with a fully-differential topology and range from $1600 - $3500.

I didn't mean to suggest that Sherbourn used HDBaseT -- I meant to say that because of that company's focus on the integrator market, it would be logical to include HDBaseT to compete better with other integrator-focused products that include HDBaseT, such as the new Integra DTR-60.5 and DHC-60.5 receiver and processor, respectively.

I see differential, but I don't see that it's quad differential? (Differential, fully differential, dual, quad, fully balanced -- the distinctions always seem to confuse me). I don't think that fully balanced always means quad differential. I remember KeithL having a good post clarifying the differences.

I agree about the inclusion of HDBaseT, I'd like to see it.

[amaheshw]

Jim -- the terms "Quad Differential" and "Dual Differential" as used by Emo are not commonly used in the industry. "Quad Differential" refers to what is more commonly known as "balanced" or "differential" and "Dual Differential" refers to "single-ended." When I used the term "fully balanced" I meant balanced on all channels, not just stereo channels.

I am skeptical that Emo would design a multichannel balanced topology on any "RMC"-grade processor given the sheer complexity of such a design and the absence of any plans to create a balanced multichannel amp. Nearly every RMC customer would be steered to an Emo rival for a suitable amp. So I'll believe that when I see it.

Oops -- I forgot that constructive criticism is not tolerated here, right Deewan?

[klinemj]

Who says they do not plan to have a balanced multichannel amp? I just said we didn't hear about it. And, there are many I have read about who have used an XPA-1 for each channel in a HT. Hard for me to imagine, but I have seen it!

And, I have balanced nCore mononblocks and have contemplated building a 5 channel version for my surrounds and centers. So, I could use the capability.

Mark

[Jim]

Sept 11, 2013 15:15:49 GMT -5 amaheshw said:

I am skeptical that Emo would design a multichannel balanced topology on any "RMC"-grade processor given the sheer complexity of such a design and the absence of any plans to create a balanced multichannel amp. Nearly every RMC customer would be steered to an Emo rival for a suitable amp. So I'll believe that when I see it.

Oops -- I forgot that constructive criticism is not tolerated here, right Deewan?

I strongly disagree with your comments. Clearly you're just trying to get a reaction from people (aka, "trolling").

If you have nothing to contribute other than FUD and skepticism....... please move along... or start recommending the Outlaw gear you are selling, or something worthwhile.

[amaheshw]

Sept 11, 2013 15:27:49 GMT -5 Jim said:

Sept 11, 2013 15:15:49 GMT -5 amaheshw said:

I am skeptical that Emo would design a multichannel balanced topology on any "RMC"-grade processor given the sheer complexity of such a design and the absence of any plans to create a balanced multichannel amp. Nearly every RMC customer would be steered to an Emo rival for a suitable amp. So I'll believe that when I see it.

Oops -- I forgot that constructive criticism is not tolerated here, right Deewan?

I strongly disagree with your comments. Clearly you're just trying to get a reaction from people (aka, "trolling").

If you have nothing to contribute other than FUD and skepticism....... please move along... or start recommending the Outlaw gear you are selling, or something worthwhile.

Don't forget that I also mentioned two Integra products -- shouldn't you also have accused me of selling Integra gear? And don't forget I mentioned HDBaseT -- that must mean that I am a member of the HDBaseT alliance.

Keep drinking that Kool-aid, Jim.

[garbulky]

Sept 11, 2013 15:15:49 GMT -5 amaheshw said:

Jim -- the terms "Quad Differential" and "Dual Differential" as used by Emo are not commonly used in the industry. "Quad Differential" refers to what is more commonly known as "balanced" or "differential" and "Dual Differential" refers to "single-ended." When I used the term "fully balanced" I meant balanced on all channels, not just stereo channels.

I am skeptical that Emo would design a multichannel balanced topology on any "RMC"-grade processor given the sheer complexity of such a design and the absence of any plans to create a balanced multichannel amp. Nearly every RMC customer would be steered to an Emo rival for a suitable amp. So I'll believe that when I see it.

Oops -- I forgot that constructive criticism is not tolerated here, right Deewan?

I was surprised it said differential amp. I have a hard time believing it's fully balanced on all channels. It may be more akin to Emotiva's "dual-differential" circuitry which refers to the inputs I think (?) but not necessarily the requirements for true fully differential and balanced circuitry. FWIW, all emotiva amps are dual differential according to emo's way of wording things. Except for the fully balanced ones.
Usually fully balanced requires a whole lot of circuitry. Wikipedia mentions their common mode rejection as "The common-mode rejection ratio (CMRR) of a differential amplifier (or other device) is the rejection by the device of unwanted input signals common to both input leads, relative to the wanted difference signal." I am no engineer and most of that's greek to me but it looks to be referencing the input circuitry. I may well be wrong. But if those amps are fully differential on every channel that's a heck of an accomplishment at the price.
If you hear from outlaw that it is fully balanced from end to end then that is impressive.

[amaheshw]

Sept 11, 2013 17:05:33 GMT -5 garbulky said:

Sept 11, 2013 15:15:49 GMT -5 amaheshw said:

Jim -- the terms "Quad Differential" and "Dual Differential" as used by Emo are not commonly used in the industry. "Quad Differential" refers to what is more commonly known as "balanced" or "differential" and "Dual Differential" refers to "single-ended." When I used the term "fully balanced" I meant balanced on all channels, not just stereo channels.

I am skeptical that Emo would design a multichannel balanced topology on any "RMC"-grade processor given the sheer complexity of such a design and the absence of any plans to create a balanced multichannel amp. Nearly every RMC customer would be steered to an Emo rival for a suitable amp. So I'll believe that when I see it.

Oops -- I forgot that constructive criticism is not tolerated here, right Deewan?

I was surprised it said differential amp. I have a hard time believing it's fully balanced on all channels. It may be more akin to Emotiva's "dual-differential" circuitry which refers to the inputs I think (?) but not necessarily the requirements for true fully differential and balanced circuitry. FWIW, all emotiva amps are dual differential according to emo's way of wording things. Except for the fully balanced ones.
Usually fully balanced requires a whole lot of circuitry. Wikipedia mentions their common mode rejection as "The common-mode rejection ratio (CMRR) of a differential amplifier (or other device) is the rejection by the device of unwanted input signals common to both input leads, relative to the wanted difference signal." I am no engineer and most of that's greek to me but it looks to be referencing the input circuitry. I may well be wrong. But if those amps are fully differential on every channel that's a heck of an accomplishment at the price.
If you hear from outlaw that it is fully balanced from end to end then that is impressive.

Its my understanding that those amps are based on an ATI-designed topology (see its 2000 and 3000 series), which ATI modifies and white labels according to the needs of various companies, such as Outlaw and Lexicon (ZX-7). According to info on those companies' websites, the topology is indeed balanced on all channels.

I would love to see an Emo balanced multichannel amp -- please join me in encouraging Dan and Lonnie to build it!

[Jim]

Sept 11, 2013 16:57:25 GMT -5 amaheshw said:

Sept 11, 2013 15:27:49 GMT -5 Jim said:

I strongly disagree with your comments. Clearly you're just trying to get a reaction from people (aka, "trolling").

If you have nothing to contribute other than FUD and skepticism....... please move along... or start recommending the Outlaw gear you are selling, or something worthwhile.

Don't forget that I also mentioned two Integra products -- shouldn't you also have accused me of selling Integra gear? And don't forget I mentioned HDBaseT -- that must mean that I am a member of the HDBaseT alliance.

Keep drinking that Kool-aid, Jim.

Thanks. Appreciate it.

[Jim]

Sept 11, 2013 17:20:30 GMT -5 amaheshw said:

Sept 11, 2013 17:05:33 GMT -5 garbulky said:

I was surprised it said differential amp. I have a hard time believing it's fully balanced on all channels. It may be more akin to Emotiva's "dual-differential" circuitry which refers to the inputs I think (?) but not necessarily the requirements for true fully differential and balanced circuitry. FWIW, all emotiva amps are dual differential according to emo's way of wording things. Except for the fully balanced ones.
Usually fully balanced requires a whole lot of circuitry. Wikipedia mentions their common mode rejection as "The common-mode rejection ratio (CMRR) of a differential amplifier (or other device) is the rejection by the device of unwanted input signals common to both input leads, relative to the wanted difference signal." I am no engineer and most of that's greek to me but it looks to be referencing the input circuitry. I may well be wrong. But if those amps are fully differential on every channel that's a heck of an accomplishment at the price.
If you hear from outlaw that it is fully balanced from end to end then that is impressive.

Its my understanding that those amps are based on an ATI-designed topology (see its 2000 and 3000 series), which ATI modifies and white labels according to the needs of various companies, such as Outlaw and Lexicon (ZX-7). According to info on those companies' websites, the topology is indeed balanced on all channels.

I would love to see an Emo balanced multichannel amp -- please join me in encouraging Dan and Lonnie to build it!

I contacted Customer Service @ Outlaw and confirmed the 7500 and 7900 are in fact fully balanced as individual channels. The 7500 ($1599) is similar to an XPA-5 ($999) in terms of wattage, but balanced. I'd guess the 7900 ($3499) would be similar to the ($2500??) XPR-7 when it comes out. The 7900 is 145lb!!

The prices are indeed quite surprising for Outlaw to accomplish fully balanced for those price points.

I'd love to see Emotiva build some fully balanced multi-channel amps too -- to take full advantage of the RMC-1 (assuming it's all fully balanced). That being said, I wouldn't buy an amp purely based on it's topology. I'd much rather see the AP reports and specs, rather than just topology and wattage. Cool-Aid speaking: Emotiva still maintains the upper hand when it comes to transparency of things like AP reports. I'd love Outlaw to do the same for an apples to apples comparison.

[cwt]

Sept 11, 2013 17:05:33 GMT -5 garbulky said:

I was surprised it said differential amp. I have a hard time believing it's fully balanced on all channels. It may be more akin to Emotiva's "dual-differential" circuitry which refers to the inputs I think (?) but not necessarily the requirements for true fully differential and balanced circuitry. FWIW, all emotiva amps are dual differential according to emo's way of wording things. Except for the fully balanced ones.
Usually fully balanced requires a whole lot of circuitry. Wikipedia mentions their common mode rejection as "The common-mode rejection ratio (CMRR) of a differential amplifier (or other device) is the rejection by the device of unwanted input signals common to both input leads, relative to the wanted difference signal." I am no engineer and most of that's greek to me but it looks to be referencing the input circuitry. I may well be wrong. But if those amps are fully differential on every channel that's a heck of an accomplishment at the price.
If you hear from outlaw that it is fully balanced from end to end then that is impressive.

I think that gels well with this definition of 'balanced' garbulky and If I recall emo power amps use the transformer method for balanced ??

Professional audio engineers usually use the term “balanced”
to refer to differential signal transmission. This imparts the
idea of symmetry, which is very important in differential
systems. The driver has balanced outputs, the line has balanced characteristics, and the receiver has balanced inputs.
There are two methods commonly used to manipulate
differential signals: electronic and transformer.
1. Electronic methods have advantages such as low cost,
small size and weight, and superior frequency response
at low frequency and dc.
2. The advantages that transformers offer are excellent
common-mode rejection ratio (CMRR), galvanic isolation, no power consumption (efficiencies near 100%),
and immunity to very hostile EMC environments.

www.ti.com/lit/an/slyt165/slyt165.pdf

[rogersch]

Sept 11, 2013 15:22:02 GMT -5 klinemj said:

Who says they do not plan to have a balanced multichannel amp? I just said we didn't hear about it. And, there are many I have read about who have used an XPA-1 for each channel in a HT. Hard for me to imagine, but I have seen it!

And, I have balanced nCore mononblocks and have contemplated building a 5 channel version for my surrounds and centers. So, I could use the capability.

Mark

I've got already 5 fully balanced nCore monoblocks anxiously waiting for a fully balanced pre-processor...

[deewan]

Sept 11, 2013 15:15:49 GMT -5 amaheshw said:

Oops -- I forgot that constructive criticism is not tolerated here, right Deewan?

HA HA! Never loose your sense of humor.

[amaheshw]

Sept 11, 2013 20:31:01 GMT -5 Jim said:

I contacted Customer Service @ Outlaw and confirmed the 7500 and 7900 are in fact fully balanced as individual channels. The 7500 ($1599) is similar to an XPA-5 ($999) in terms of wattage, but balanced. I'd guess the 7900 ($3499) would be similar to the ($2500??) XPR-7 when it comes out. The 7900 is 145lb!!

The prices are indeed quite surprising for Outlaw to accomplish fully balanced for those price points.

I'd love to see Emotiva build some fully balanced multi-channel amps too -- to take full advantage of the RMC-1 (assuming it's all fully balanced). That being said, I wouldn't buy an amp purely based on it's topology. I'd much rather see the AP reports and specs, rather than just topology and wattage. Cool-Aid speaking: Emotiva still maintains the upper hand when it comes to transparency of things like AP reports. I'd love Outlaw to do the same for an apples to apples comparison.


[/quote]


Maybe someone here who knows Dan and Lonnie personally can reach out to them and convey our interest interest in an Emo balanced multichannel amp (I'm too new here to have any pull). Perhaps someone here with tech savvy can start an electronic petition. Along with the balanced amp I want to see a BD player with balanced outs. Imagine that balanced source coupled to an RMC coupled to a balanced amp -- balanced signal all the way from source to output. No single-ended conversions, no transformers, no crap in the signal path -- just pure balanced bliss. No one in the world makes anything like that -- that's how Emo can really distinguish itself.

[Jim]

Sept 12, 2013 10:18:17 GMT -5 amaheshw said:

Maybe someone here who knows Dan and Lonnie personally can reach out to them and convey our interest interest in an Emo balanced multichannel amp (I'm too new here to have any pull). Perhaps someone here with tech savvy can start an electronic petition. Along with the balanced amp I want to see a BD player with balanced outs. Imagine that balanced source coupled to an RMC coupled to a balanced amp -- balanced signal all the way from source to output. No single-ended conversions, no transformers, no crap in the signal path -- just pure balanced bliss. No one in the world makes anything like that -- that's how Emo can really distinguish itself.

If you want to get attention to something, I normally recommend creating a new dedicated thread, so you can catch some people's attention.

In my experience, normally Emotiva is pretty diligent with determining what the market will bear. They may already be working on some amps to match the RMC, but we don't know the RMC timeline yet anyway.

At the last Emofest, I think that Dan made it pretty clear that Emotiva won't be getting into the Bluray Player market. He stated (I'm paraphrasing) that he'd rather build the products that they know well, and let Oppo build players -- since that's their sole market and they do it very well.

I suspect that the Bluray Player market is exceedingly competitive (read: hard to make a profit).

[Erwin.BE]

Maybe this is not directly linked to the RMC-1... yet.

But here it goes: I asked, via e-mail, Auro-Technologies (they also reside in Flanders) about other processors than the StormAudio SSP 16-3D and the DataSat RS20i that are in the pipeline with Auro-3D capability. They replied that, yes, there will be, but no, they cannot reveal which nor when.

And what about their stand-alone add-on Auro-3D decoder they talked about a while ago? Yes, it will come, but only after those other processors.

So, even if Emotiva decides not to go for Auro-3D in the RMC-1 (or other multi-channel format decoding), we might still add the feature ourselves afterwards.

The proposed 12 channels of the RMC-1 have to get some use, however. There was talk about "maybe 9.3" so that's two main channels more than 7.1. Sticking to half dts Neo:X (full = 11.1) would be a mistake IMO. Auro-3D is superior (discrete content) and Atmos even better (object based, but no sign yet of getting it to home audio). If it were me deciding about the RMC-1, I'd go for the full whack 16 channels in stead of 12, like DataSat and StormAudio. You need 16-channel architecture anyway if you want to do 8 channels fully balanced, as proposed at Emofest. DataSat also provides the possibility to use the 16 channels for fully balanced 7.1. You could hook it up as you'd wish. Here's a few scenario's using all 16 channels:

• Fully balanced 7.1
• Not balanced 12.4 (only XLR connections)
• Fully balanced LCR fronts, the rest unbalanced 11.2
• Fully balanced LR fronts, others unbalanced 10.4 (my favorite)

What do you think?
After all, the thing was aimed to "compete with anything costing up to 20K" (believe it was Lonnie saying that in 2012)

[Jim]

I'm curious how many channels people are looking for in the RMC-1 so I created a poll:

emotivalounge.proboards.com/thread/33715/rmc-1-channels-use

[richardrc]

Oct 24, 2013 14:05:46 GMT -5 Erwin.BE said:

What do you think?
After all, the thing was aimed to "compete with anything costing up to 20K" (believe it was Lonnie saying that in 2012)

It is only circuitry! Fully balanced all the way.... lol

[lrobertson]

@ Erwin. Reading this post cleared some things up for me as to where you wanted to run with this new 3d audio. The link cwt showed me really did clear up the confusion about the direction 3d audio will be heading. That is as long as this article is accurate:

www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/cinemacon-issue-brewing-proposed-immersive-442120

It sounds like the only two 3d codes that are up for debate to be selected for the new audio standard both have object based capability. Auro actually backs DTS' MDA object based code which is fighting for its spot with Dolby Atmos'. So in the end Auro 3d will probably have to adapt to either code that is chosen by SMPTE. I'm not sure what DTS and Auro have actually worked out but in the end the standard should be a better result than what Auro currently has which is just its 3 layer immersion approach without the object based code. For all we know Auro will just be a format for up converting broadcasts while actual bluray, digital, or gaming content will utilize the object based code.

Please correct me if I am reading into this wrong.

With this information on the two possible codes being object based I believe Emotiva would be short sighted to limit their system to 9.2 or even 11.2. With the new object based code the more speakers placed in your room will result in a closer sound to what the original sound mixer intended. Even 11 channels will not come close to utilizing this codes full potential or mirroring the artists work. This is a huge leap from the old standard of anything other than 5.1 or 7.1 is not pure to the original artistic intent. I would love to see Emotiva allow you to connect as many RMC-1's together as necessary to allow for more channels or at least some type of expansion processors that can be daisy chained to the RMC-1 like I mentioned in my other post.

As far as fully balanced goes it would be nice for the L/R or maybe to focus it on all the front speakers if any. I would hate to invest a lot more money into making my surround channels all fully balanced though. That doesn't seem as necessary as maximizing audio channels and this new codec that will soon be at our fingertips. I think its kind of looking backward at 5.1 and 7.1 rather than looking forward at up to 64 channels. It would be nice if perhaps the RMC-1 was fully balanced but any expansion processors would not be. It will be interesting to see where Emotiva goes with this if anywhere. They have always been forward thinking though and have pushed the limits.

[Erwin.BE]

I already read that article but I don't know what to make of it. They don't seem to agree...

I see you got four subs yourself which is the proper way to do it. I plan two more besides those two for between LCR that are ready.

Object based sound is indeed the way to go for the future. Dolby doesn't seem keen to implement it for the home audio. Let's hope dts and Auro Technologies teach them a lesson and come through with MDA. For my HT, I see room for 13 main channels.

BTW Atmos 64 channels are up to 61 main channels and three subs. Two of the subs are in the rear corners to augment the surround satellites' output.

61 A4 13.1 Multichannel • 4 subs.pdf (95.93 KB)

[lrobertson]

I think you are right that with DTS' MDA it would show up in our home theaters sooner than if we had to rely on Dolby licensing their Atmos. So I would agree with you I hope DTS does teach them a lesson. Whoever owns the standard is going to end up being in control of when and if it will show up in HT processors because this will be the only code that the actual filmmaker will ever develop as 3d from what it sounds like. I would still be surprised if Dolby thinks they can make more money by keeping this standard for only theaters rather than marketing it to all processors. But not everything in this world makes much sense so I can see your skepticism. I really think that the whole issue on DTS and Dolby not agreeing is just because both of these companies have already developed 3d object based systems and they both would like 100% of the market as there can only be one standard. It seems like this is a pretty large step up in audio technology to only allow Dolby or DTS to decide what happens with the market and tech. Who knows if the decision will be based on the ease of mixing, implementing, performance, cost, or maybe just politics.

I'm excited to get the subs going. I am going to be building LLT boxes for these as well and corner load the room. Progress is a little slow but I'm hoping I can get a lot done over the winter while it's wet as I'm a farmer. How do you like the Maelstroms? I've heard good things.

I could load my room with a lot of speakers but I will never get close to the 61.3 that you mentioned Dolby actually has available. My ceiling is sloped with the low side being about 10' and the screen side being a little over 12'.  Really when I pick my placements I've tried to separate the room into quadrants and then would have separate layers for height. The front 180 degrees I could have a speaker at every 18 or 15 degrees in the future and start with speakers at every 30 or 36 degrees which may prove to be plenty and it also should work well with DSX for now. I would prioritize the ear height as I would never want speakers surpassing much over 30 degrees from each other around the room always focusing more speakers towards the front. I could then start with a height arrangement that would focus on 45 degree height and 45 degrees of separation. If there are large holes in my sound which I would assume would only be towards the front I could focus on an array on a 22.5 degree height filling the gaps. It doesn't sound like a speaker directly above the listener is necessary. Its a long process and building the system will take time if not my whole life but I'm 30 and work hard so I'm always on the used market for a cheaper pair of speakers that match and enjoy a never ending project.