RMC-1

[repeetavx]

This discussion is about the upcoming Emotiva "Reference Multimedia Controller". So the idea of the device, is that it produces a signal exact to the source, as encoded.

Not that I don't understand the point about being able to manufacture information that does a better job of producing the "intent" of the recording. The question becomes should the "Reference Multimedia Controller" be the platform for ambiance "reclamation".

[jmilton]

Feb 21, 2014 14:29:34 GMT -5 wbroshea said:

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.

That's why this is a hobby. Don't let someone else tell you what "sounds good" to you!

[wbroshea]

Feb 21, 2014 14:44:15 GMT -5 repeetavx said:

This discussion is about the upcoming Emotiva "Reference Multimedia Controller". So the idea of the device, is that it produces a signal exact to the source, as encoded.

Not that I don't understand the point about being able to manufacture information that does a better job of producing the "intent" of the recording. The question becomes should the "Reference Multimedia Controller" be the platform for ambiance "reclamation".

Sorry, I probably posted this in the wrong section (the argument against additional channels came up here so I posed the question). However, the question I asked is not, nor do I want it to become, "should the 'Reference Multimedia Controller' be the platform for ambiance 'reclamation'". Rather my question is why is it important for any processor (of course they all want to be called reference) to be only true to the source. I don't care what you call it. Why do I only want to hear the source, realistic or not, vs something potentially more realistic and if not can be shut off. Of course I guess I should qualify that I don't listen to music really at all, my question is only in reference to movies. I don't even know if you use the extra channels for music, just wanted to clarify. 

I guess what I am looking for is a reason other than, its the source so everyone should want to hear it as intended by the sound engineer.  I don't.  I want to hear at if I was sitting in the movie scene experiencing it.  I imagine the sound engineers who mix the tracks attempt to achieve this, but it doesn't mean they are always perfect.

If this should posted somewhere else, as I suspect it should, someone please point me to right forum and I will move the discussion there so as not to clog this thread.

[wbroshea]

Feb 21, 2014 14:31:57 GMT -5 Erwin.BE said:

I think you are indeed way off on this.

Slightly more info might be needed for me to understand why you feel this way. Call me slow.

Feb 21, 2014 14:49:15 GMT -5 jmilton said:

That's why this is a hobby. Don't let someone else tell you what "sounds good" to you!

I completely agree with this, but it is always nice to hear why others feel the way they do.

[Priapulus]

> Rather my question is why is it important for any processor (of course they all want to be called reference) to be only true to the source.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Presumably the source creators (movie maker) created the source material to faithfully give us their artistic intent. Why would we want a piece of hardware to reinterprete and distort that intent; however well intended?

[AudioHTIT]

Feb 21, 2014 15:23:13 GMT -5 wbroshea said:

I guess what I am looking for is a reason other than, its the source so everyone should want to hear it as intended by the sound engineer.  I don't.  I want to hear at if I was sitting in the movie scene experiencing it.  I imagine the sound engineers who mix the tracks attempt to achieve this, but it doesn't mean they are always perfect.

My response would be that if you don't trust the professional who was hired to capture or create the soundtrack of the movie, then who are you going to trust? Yourself? Do you want to adjust the color as well because you don't trust the cameraman and cinematographer? Personally I want to see and hear the movie that the director and producer wanted me to see. Sure some 'professionals' are better than others, but it seems we need to give them a chance to present their creation before we start messing with it. 

[wbroshea]

Feb 21, 2014 19:44:47 GMT -5 Priapulus said:

I'm not sure I understand the question. Presumably the source creators (movie maker) created the source material to faithfully give us their artistic intent. Why would we want a piece of hardware to reinterprete and distort that intent; however well intended?

I guess that might actually help me understand the other side. I still don't agree but I think I get it. I never thought of the sound effects sent to the additional channels as part of the "artistry." (the additional channels only add ambiance sound effects right?)

I assumed the source creators intent was accuracy/realism for the effects that would be extrapolated to the additional channels. Thus if one determines it is more realistic with the additional channels there is an argument to be made that using the additional channels would be more faithful to the source creators artistic intent.

Feb 21, 2014 20:13:07 GMT -5 AudioHTIT said:

My response would be that if you don't trust the professional who was hired to capture or create the soundtrack of the movie, then who are you going to trust? Yourself?

Of course. Just as JMilton said, why would I let someone else tell me what sounds good.

Feb 21, 2014 20:13:07 GMT -5 AudioHTIT said:

Do you want to adjust the color as well because you don't trust the cameraman and cinematographer?

That might be going a little farther than extrapolating ambient sounds (again is that right, I thought it was but maybe not), but again, if the colors look off to me or don't seem realistic I would certainly change them. Well not really, both of my PRO-151FDs have been calibrated, but you get the idea.

Personally I want to see and hear the movie that the director and producer wanted me to see. Sure some 'professionals' are better than others, but it seems we need to give them a chance to present their creation before we start messing with it. 

Seems to be the same argument as priapulus made and as I said before, I understand it and respect it. I never thought of the sound effect going to the additional channels as interfering with the "creation."  Again though, what if the director or producer wants you to feel like you are standing in the rain with the characters?  Is it less faithful to the artistry if the processor extrapolates additional channels to more accurately induce the sound/feeling of actually standing in the rain?

[AudioHTIT]

Feb 21, 2014 22:08:38 GMT -5 wbroshea said:

Seems to be the same argument as priapulus made and as I said before, I understand it and respect it. I never thought of the sound effect going to the additional channels as interfering with the "creation."  Again though, what if the director or producer wants you to feel like you are standing in the rain with the characters?  Is it less faithful to the artistry if the processor extrapolates additional channels to more accurately induce the sound/feeling of actually standing in the rain?

I was speaking more to the big 'picture'. I don't have an opinion on the extra channels but don't see why they couldn't be used to make a more affective presentation, or why the sound designer wouldn't attempt to consider their inclusion in modern systems. I would think the RMC-1 should have additional channels (9/11?), and the industry should continue to work on the best way to use them.

[cwt]

Like wbroshea I liken extra channels [if needed ] to be one step closer to reality . Mixing engineers are constrained atm to 5.1 or remixed 7.1 with a few mastered in 7.1 movies . Foley effects and the like are approximations to what something actually sounds like so should we be aiming in this direction ? Also our bipole/dipole rear surrounds are already a compromise for music which benefits from a direct radiator.

Heres why we need more speakers ; note the date 2006 ; and were slowly getting there with the new object based formats . Note the input from Kris Kyriakakus and the link subsequently to dts neox and other expansion algorithms that have eventuated over time that conform to ways forward

www.audioholics.com/trade-shows/on-location-with-audyssey-laboratories/introducing-the-10-2-surround-format

Moving from 2 to 3 and then to 5 front speakers (as found in 10.2) the area in which imaging distortion is minimized increases from a few centimeters to over 3 meters.

Anything that reduces distortion in loudspeaker reproduction is alright by me ; its a magnitude more than the distortion of a power amp and as we all know the room is what needs the most help

[Erwin.BE]

Feb 21, 2014 15:24:29 GMT -5 wbroshea said:

Feb 21, 2014 14:31:57 GMT -5 Erwin.BE said:

I think you are indeed way off on this.

Slightly more info might be needed for me to understand why you feel this way. Call me slow.

I would never call anybody slow!

What I mean is that in my experience, sounds from the three LCR are easily detectable. To have more positions in the front by adding Front Height and Front Wides means being able to render much more accuracy. For example when a horse is passing by on a hard surface, I noticed the sound from the hoofs is often not positioned in the same spot as the image with traditional LCR. IMO, the ideal number of speakers would be a speaker @ every 30° in the front, both on the horizontal and vertical axis, and a speaker @ every 60° in the back, also horizontal and vertical. You end up round 22.x that way with nine @ ear level, seven @ 30° elevation in the front, two @ 60° elevation in the back, two @ 60° elevation in the front and two VOG centered above. Something like Atmos and Auro-3D mixed together. I'd never go that far. 13.3 seems the point of diminishing returns for my (large: 28' x 22') space.

[rogersch]

Another alternative for the RMC-1 I discovered today.
It's called Illusonic Immersive Audio Processor



And a movie about it's "Illusonic" technology: video

It's main drawback... It's sales price of €15.600 (that's including 21% Sales tax) in the Netherlands...

[Erwin.BE]

Mr Rubinson discussed it earlier:

www.stereophile.com/content/music-round-64


The manual is interesting for the various surround speaker setups:

www.illusonic.com/IAP_support/iap_manual_v110.pdf

[wbroshea]

Feb 22, 2014 3:08:22 GMT -5 Erwin.BE said:

Feb 21, 2014 15:24:29 GMT -5 wbroshea said:

Slightly more info might be needed for me to understand why you feel this way. Call me slow.

I would never call anybody slow!

What I mean is that in my experience, sounds from the three LCR are easily detectable. To have more positions in the front by adding Front Height and Front Wides means being able to render much more accuracy. For example when a horse is passing by on a hard surface, I noticed the sound from the hoofs is often not positioned in the same spot as the image with traditional LCR. IMO, the ideal number of speakers would be a speaker @ every 30° in the front, both on the horizontal and vertical axis, and a speaker @ every 60° in the back, also horizontal and vertical. You end up round 22.x that way with nine @ ear level, seven @ 30° elevation in the front, two @ 60° elevation in the back, two @ 60° elevation in the front and two VOG centered above. Something like Atmos and Auro-3D mixed together. I'd never go that far. 13.3 seems the point of diminishing returns for my (large: 28' x 22') space.

I completely forgot about this conversation. I'm confused now. I thought you disagreed with my position earlier and now it sounds like you agree with it. Although I do want to point out my question was not just adding more speakers and presumably the source using additional channels as well, but was really why is adding and using additional channels bad when the source uses fewer. ie using the presence channels on a yamaha when the source is 7.1 assuming it adds realism. Regardless, I'm lost, sadly that happens more often than I would like to admit.

[jerrin]

Some interesting Atmos news: www.slashgear.com/dolby-bringing-surround-sound-to-tablets-and-smartphones-22321706/

[Mike Ronesia]

Mar 3, 2014 14:44:43 GMT -5 rogersch said:

Another alternative for the RMC-1 I discovered today.
It's called Illusonic Immersive Audio Processor



And a movie about it's "Illusonic" technology: video

It's main drawback... It's sales price of €15.600 (that's including 21% Sales tax) in the Netherlands...

I'd sure like to hear this in a blind test against other systems.

[Topend]

Now that the XMC-1 is released I wonder what is now planned for the RMC-1? Atmos would make this real desirable with the addition channels.

Cheers,
Dave.

[marcuslaw]

I hope that the delayed launch of the XMC-1 is not an indication as to how long we're going to have to wait for the RMC-1. Topend, unless it will be bundled with existing surround formats, I doubt that Emo will acquire the license for Atmos given the present one with Dirac. My guess is the RMC-1 will feature a more expansive Dirac than the yet-to-be-activated version in the XMC-1.

[Jim]

Jul 13, 2014 7:50:28 GMT -5 marcuslaw said:

I hope that the delayed launch of the XMC-1 is not an indication as to how long we're going to have to wait for the RMC-1. Topend, unless it will be bundled with existing surround formats, I doubt that Emo will acquire the license for Atmos given the present one with Dirac. My guess is the RMC-1 will feature a more expansive Dirac than the yet-to-be-activated version in the XMC-1.

Dirac has nothing to do with codecs. I don't understand the correlation? One is room correction, one is a surround format.

It's like saying that a product with Audyssey won't have support for a particular surround format.

[petew]

I'd guess Atmos on a future Emotiva processor depends on how quickly Momentum Data Systems can get their DSP module updated. A search for "atmos" at mds.com turned up nada.

[cwt]

Jul 13, 2014 9:30:46 GMT -5 petew said:

I'd guess Atmos on a future Emotiva processor depends on how quickly Momentum Data Systems can get their DSP module updated. A search for "atmos" at mds.com turned up nada.

Good point ; will be interesting to see when the datasat rs20.1 finally gets dolby atmos as they use Momentum as well . Similar dynamic at play here as Cineramax points out in this rs20.1 thread

As to Atmos, there are 3 dynamics at play, Momentum Data Systems needs to release a module, in the cinema arena Dolby competes fiercily with Datasat so some political resistance is there, But as a Dolby Licensee on the consumer side they work very effectively together Dolby TRUE HD PLz2 card being case in point which sound great.