RMC-1

[deewan]

I could see the RMC-1 having a one or two component upgrades over the XMC-1 and maybe a version of Dirac that doesn't require an external computer during setup. And the only other difference being 11.x channels. The XMC-1 with 7.2 and the current component list is VERY good. I see the RMC being the more professional pre/pro for larger dedicated rooms where 9.x or more channels are needed. For most people who only need 7.2 in a smaller room like me, I am sure the XMC is all we need. That being said, I reserve my right to use my second 40% card on the RMC. I love overkill!

[hifiaudio2]

I've said it before, but PLEASE either have all channels be assignable or have 4 subs outs (all balanced of course).

[rogersch]

Feb 10, 2014 14:03:12 GMT -5 deewan said:

I could see the RMC-1 having a one or two component upgrades over the XMC-1 and maybe a version of Dirac that doesn't require an external computer during setup.

So you would like that Emotiva builds a mini PC build in the RMC-1 and charge you (wild guess!) 2 or 3 times more than decent laptop? Most of the Ultra High-End surround processors, like the ADA Reference mach 4, have in mini PC board included and some even a small LCD display. Personally I find that a real waste of money as this measurement and filter calculation is done only occasionally...

[ansat]

Feb 10, 2014 14:57:02 GMT -5 rogersch said:

Feb 10, 2014 14:03:12 GMT -5 deewan said:

I could see the RMC-1 having a one or two component upgrades over the XMC-1 and maybe a version of Dirac that doesn't require an external computer during setup.

So you would like that Emotiva builds a mini PC build in the RMC-1 and charge you (wild guess!) 2 or 3 times more than decent laptop? Most of the Ultra High-End surround processors, like the ADA Reference mach 4, have in mini PC board included and some even a small LCD display. Personally I find that a real waste of money as this measurement and filter calculation is done only occasionally...

What about using something like a strawberry pi? If Dirac would come up with a Linux version, then in theory, the whole thing could be done with this cheap little board. 1 hdmi output, 2 usb input 1 Ethernet output.

Tony

[deewan]

Feb 10, 2014 14:57:02 GMT -5 rogersch said:

Feb 10, 2014 14:03:12 GMT -5 deewan said:

I could see the RMC-1 having a one or two component upgrades over the XMC-1 and maybe a version of Dirac that doesn't require an external computer during setup.

So you would like that Emotiva builds a mini PC build in the RMC-1 and charge you (wild guess!) 2 or 3 times more than decent laptop? Most of the Ultra High-End surround processors, like the ADA Reference mach 4, have in mini PC board included and some even a small LCD display. Personally I find that a real waste of money as this measurement and filter calculation is done only occasionally...

I did not say "I want the RMC-1 to have...." I was only speculating, and in my opinion, the difference in an XMC and RMC could be onboard auto room correction processing, number of channels, and a component upgrade along the signal path. I may not like that Emotiva builds a mini PC for a product and charges me 2 or 3 times what a laptop at Wal-mart would cost me. But there is a price for convenience and not needing to hook up a laptop (assuming the user owns one), messing around with loading the software on the laptop, and then running the ARC process. The convenience of turning on a processor, plugging in a mic, and running the ARC process using on screen display might be worth $$$ to some people.

[danr]

Yes, the RMC-1 will not be that much better. In fact, it will probably be the same unit, just disguised in the Reference Series cosmetics. Leave it to Big Dan to pull a fast one on us. A $5,000 XMC-1 in the making. The secret is out...

No but seriously...Big Dan...late summer?

[danr]

Maybe I was too harsh...Big Dan will swap out "a few parts" and add two more balanced connectors.

[klinemj]

Yeah...pretty harsh. Emotiva is pretty well known for having products of value along with products increasing performance for increased but still value pricing. I don't see why this won't continue w/the RMC. And if not, don't buy it.

Mark

[danr]

Feb 11, 2014 21:00:33 GMT -5 klinemj said:

Yeah...pretty harsh. Emotiva is pretty well known for having products of value along with products increasing performance for increased but still value pricing. I don't see why this won't continue w/the RMC. And if not, don't buy it.

Mark

Of course I'm buying it. I was being sarcastic as it relates to some of the previous and somewhat ignorant posts in this thread. Smileys...mean take it in jest people.

[rogersch]

Trinnov Altitude 32 a nice alternative for a RMC-1??




With just two drawbacks:
1] Will be available from September / October 2014 (interesting to see what will be commercially earlier available the Trinnov Altitude 32 or the XMC-1. )
2] The price. Estimated retail price in the Netherlands nearly €15.000 (that is including 21%(!) sales tax)

Off course including it's superb Trinnov room correction software which rivals Dirac.

[hifiaudio2]

Nice.. where did you get that info? I started a thread over on AVS for that processor a week or so ago but have not seen updated info on the Trinnov website.

[Jim]

Feb 13, 2014 14:59:01 GMT -5 rogersch said:

Off course including it's superb Trinnov room correction software which rivals Dirac.

From the limited reading I've done, I'm not sure that Trinnov rivals Dirac as much as they are simply competitors.

I lost interest after the first few hundred posts, but one of the things that Dan Francis was trying to do here was to compare Trinnov vs Dirac. I don't recall seeing any clear winner, but maybe there is in the other 1300 posts:

www.avsforum.com/t/1366849/datasat-rs20i-beta-test-and-comparison-with-ada-rhapsody-trinnov-teq-12/0_100

I do know that ADA TEQ gear is used in some high-end professional dubbing stages, and it's Trinnov based.

I do suspect that Dirac hasn't been around as long (and thus, is in less gear so far)

[rogersch]

Feb 13, 2014 16:04:38 GMT -5 hifiaudio2 said:

Nice.. where did you get that info? I started a thread over on AVS for that processor a week or so ago but have not seen updated info on the Trinnov website.

On a Dutch forum: HTFORUM

[cwt]

Interesting processor ; price is the main consideration compared to the rmc1 naturally

The base unit offers eight AES inputs and 8 analog outputs

and is around 15000 euro . I wonder how much more a 8 in 16ch out would be ? Strange the rs20i had to wait to get lossless decoders and now this one is restricted to pcm ; things may change by sept though ? Would be better if it lost the aes digital inputs snd put in lossless decoders - its got hdmi inputs after all-

Its trying to be 2 different devices being pro oriented as an add on to say a rs20i as well

[TempTag]

The Trinnov will cost far more. That said, the 4 element mic in the picture is something that makes Trinnov different from Dirac and, I think, just about everyone else.

Trinnov measures where a speaker is located in a 3d space, height and angle, not just distance. Add the spacial remapping function to create the illusion of perfect speaker placement, and the effect is quite impressive. I have the Sherwood 972 (think non-customizable Trinnov light) and it is amazing how much Trinnov can compensate for non-perfect speaker location while still sounding great. At the risk of sounding like a Trinnov advert, the sound blends so well speakers are almost impossible to locate. The offshoot to this is that channel counts above the normal 7.1 can be put to good use filling in imperfect placement in a room as in the picture above.

I would love to see a company like Emotiva bring a more feature rich version of Trinnov out in the 5k range.  (Or maybe just a bit more.)

[Jim]

Feb 15, 2014 10:15:52 GMT -5 TempTag said:

The Trinnov will cost far more. That said, the 4 element mic in the picture is something that makes Trinnov different from Dirac and, I think, just about everyone else.

Trinnov measures where a speaker is located in a 3d space, height and angle, not just distance. Add the spacial remapping function to create the illusion of perfect speaker placement, and the effect is quite impressive. I have the Sherwood 972 (think non-customizable Trinnov light) and it is amazing how much Trinnov can compensate for non-perfect speaker location while still sounding great. At the risk of sounding like a Trinnov advert, the sound blends so well speakers are almost impossible to locate. The offshoot to this is that channel counts above the normal 7.1 can be put to good use filling in imperfect placement in a room as in the picture above.

I would love to see a company like Emotiva bring a more feature rich version of Trinnov out in the 5k range.  (Or maybe just a bit more.)

At the risk of sounding like a total wet blanket, the Trinnov microphone itself looks like it costs $5k.

I'm sure it's good though.

[se7en1]

I say let the XMC-1 be top dog for a while. When object based surround is available to the consumer then build an RMC-1, to me that seems the next logical step.

I'm a bit of a purist, so having 11.x capable processors seems silly to me, especially when those extra channels are being extrapolated from the 5.1 or 7.1 discrete tracks, neat trick but not really being true to the source material. Although I have never heard a system with height or wide channel processing, I get the impression that they do add considerably more to the experience than the surr. back channels do on a 7.1 discrete track, no argument there.

It's really too bad that back in the day Dolby EX and DTS ES didn't do a little more research and add discrete front channels instead of a rear channels, then today we'd have 7.1 tracks with the speakers in front where it seems they would have done a lot more good. Processing like Audyssey DSX and Neo X have filled those gaps, and many seem to enjoy them. But adding all those speakers is cumbersome, and only a very small percentage of consumers actually go that route.

For me advanced room processing like Dirac or Trinnov is the way to go, making the most of what's there should be the priority. Unfortunately the 11+ channel genie is out of the bottle, and having a 11 channel flagship processor is almost necessary these days.

The XMC will be good enough for me for a while, and I hope Emotiva does something special with the RMC to compete with the ultra high end gear at a fraction of the cost, that would be cool.

[chaosrv]

Feb 15, 2014 13:20:31 GMT -5 se7en1 said:

I say let the XMC-1 be top dog for a while. When object based surround is available to the consumer then build an RMC-1, to me that seems the next logical step.

I'm a bit of a purist, so having 11.x capable processors seems silly to me, especially when those extra channels are being extrapolated from the 5.1 or 7.1 discrete tracks, neat trick but not really being true to the source material. Although I have never heard a system with height or wide channel processing, I get the impression that they do add considerably more to the experience than the surr. back channels do on a 7.1 discrete track, no argument there.

It's really too bad that back in the day Dolby EX and DTS ES didn't do a little more research and add discrete front channels instead of a rear channels, then today we'd have 7.1 tracks with the speakers in front where it seems they would have done a lot more good. Processing like Audyssey DSX and Neo X have filled those gaps, and many seem to enjoy them. But adding all those speakers is cumbersome, and only a very small percentage of consumers actually go that route.

For me advanced room processing like Dirac or Trinnov is the way to go, making the most of what's there should be the priority. Unfortunately the 11+ channel genie is out of the bottle, and having a 11 channel flagship processor is almost necessary these days.

The XMC will be good enough for me for a while, and I hope Emotiva does something special with the RMC to compete with the ultra high end gear at a fraction of the cost, that would be cool.

I could be way off on this but I think the reasoning for fewer speakers in the front is because if your eyes see the movement, your brain will process the movement of the sound more readily. Whereas there are no visual cues when the sound is to your side/rear. So in order to create a more cohesive movement of the sound in areas you cannot see more speakers are required.

[wbroshea]

Feb 15, 2014 13:20:31 GMT -5 se7en1 said:

I'm a bit of a purist, so having 11.x capable processors seems silly to me, especially when those extra channels are being extrapolated from the 5.1 or 7.1 discrete tracks, neat trick but not really being true to the source material.

Recently, I have been trying to figure out the extra channels and reading opinions on them (I personally have never heard a system with extra channels so I have no opinion on whether they add or take away any value). This argument against the extra channels seems to always come up. This board it usually much nicer than other boards so I am going to ask here.

Why does one care about being true to the source material. I guess what I am trying to say is, I would want it to sound realistic no matter what the source material tells the system. I can understand if the extra channels take away from the realism of the sound or degrade it from extra processing, but if the extra channels add realism or immersion to the track then why is it bad to no longer be true to the source material. I guess what I'm saying is if I can make the rain sound more like it is coming around me from all sides (like it would in real life) then why would I want to stay true to source and have less of that effect?  Just a question, no attack intended at all and I would love to hear why.

[Erwin.BE]

I think you are indeed way off on this.