RMC-1

[cwt]

Sept 12, 2012 18:16:13 GMT -5 jamrock said:

Progress has been stymied by the traditionalists who claim that "pictures" filmed at more than 24 fps appear "too videolike" 60fps. They like the grainy texture of 24fps. So, we remain stuck in the past because these folks, despite a decided minority, are very vocal & influential. Their negative reviews are very impactful on the sale of video displays. Yes, all displays have native 60fps but in the A/V press, 24fps is treated as the premium display option

True to say people just have to get used to it ; nothing worse than frame rate judder

www.theverge.com/2012/4/24/2972858/48fps-preview-the-hobbit-reaction

[AudioHTIT]

Sept 12, 2012 22:31:38 GMT -5 zaphod2012 said:

anyone know if the XMC and RMC will have headphone socket, or the UMC-200/500?

The pictures of the UMC 200 & 500 and XMC-1 all show headphone outs, the UMC descriptions and the XMC-1 product page also lists one. One would expect the RMC-1 to have one as well but no confirmation.

[2muchht]

Sept 12, 2012 18:16:13 GMT -5 jamrock said:

... Yes, all displays have native 60fps but in the A/V press, 24fps is treated as the premium display option

True, but perhaps for a different reason that being a "traditionalist". If you hold to a "do no harm" philosophy it is desireable to keep thigns in their original format as a means of avoiding the introduction of artifacts or errors due to processing and re-coding. Thus, "24 fps in/24fps out" would make sense as a premium concept in a world where 24 fps film would otherwise be transfered to TV frame rates.

Of course, times are changing and so are frame rates. Perhaps the true goal should be to take advantage of 48 fps digital cinema cameras and then project/display at THAT native rate. Remember, as long as film is used as a significant part of the cinema distribution channel you'll have to deal with multiples of 24 fps.

I seem to recall that a major director just bought a bunch of Red cameras at 48 fps. (Peter Jackson, perhaps?). It would be cool to go to a theater and see the film projected that way. To many, higher frame rate is as important as higher resolution, perhaps correctly so.

[jamrock]

2muchht: You are a brilliant guy when it comes to digital video. Can you proffer a compelling reason(s) for displaying film at 24 fps other than as you have indicated above; the possibility of introducing artifacts via re-coding? Is 24 fps "The Ideal Frame Rarte?" ;D

[2muchht]

No, I'm FAR from brilliant, but I see brilliance from my kitchen window.

Seriously, if the source is 24fps, then display at 24fps if you can. If the source is a different rate, NO reason to display at 24fps.

In a larger view (no pun intended), always best to hit the display at its native rate so that there is no processing invovled, but here is where it gets dicey. If the source is NOT at the same rate as the display you get into trying to determine if the scaling/processing/frame rate conversion is better done in the source, the SSP or AVR, an external VSP box in between the AVR and display, or in the display, itself. With the price compression in the display world, and the choice of SoCs for the display is narrower than ever before, the display might not do such a good job. The chips in typical AVRs range from sad to decent to good. In it's day, Torino was good, but now there are better -- and worse.

It's a crap shoot with loads of variables. But, to your question, 24fps ONLY when the source is 24fps and played out well to a 24fps sink.

Hope this helps.

Clearly, I have had "2MuchHT"!

[dean70]

Actually most BluRay content is at 23.976fps. Playing at 24hz will introduce a slight judder every 40secs or so.

[2muchht]

Hey, what's 0.024fps among friends?

Ok, but seriously: "24fps" has traditionally been used to refer to content at film frame rate vs. content playing at video frame rate.

Video has been dealing with the slight offset from "round number" frame rates since the introduction of color sync timing almost 60 years ago. Anyone who has had to deal with old fashioned "drop frame" time code is well experienced with all of this. It ain't pretty, but it works.

[Erwin.BE]

Sept 11, 2012 20:53:13 GMT -5 deewan said:

Sept 11, 2012 13:59:58 GMT -5 Erwin.BE said:

I might as well go for it since by the time my 5.2 starter set-up will be expanded to 11.2 the content, no doubt, will be there.

I wouldn't hold your breath. I can see the soundtracks available in theaters, but really doubt they will make the consumer releases because the number of people that would have the equipment to decode and play the soundtrack will be very limited.

For the best possible sounding room by design, I suggest reading Sound Reproduction by Floyd Toole: www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Acoustics-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers/dp/0240520092

And now, back to the RMC discussion.

I have read many articles on the subject (though not that book, only the HK papers by Floyd Toole) and came to the conclusion an acoustician would be essential for properly designed acoustic treatments. I contacted a dutch proefessional. The first appointment is next week.

Manufactorers of these things could also be helpfull, but in the end, they will suggest you to buy the things they happen to make...

This is all relevant to the RMC-1, because what's the point in investing in expensive electronics if the room is flawed...

[Erwin.BE]

Sept 12, 2012 11:42:24 GMT -5 2muchht said:

Some interesting side notes:

-- Fox announced that they will support Atmos and will begin to release some of their forthcoming high-profile titles wtih full Atmos mixes and are updated some of their mixing rooms to accomodate this.

-- At the initial announcement of Atmos, and afterwards, Dolby people have been quite specific to say that the height speakers are NOT used for "voice of Gd" type presentation. They are there as part of the way that "objects" are transitioned from one location to another and the height speakers help create that.

-- Similarly, they have said that while this is meant to have more speakers in the theater than in the home, it is a scalable system.


We'll see.

Nice to hear and while this is meant to have more speakers in the theater than in the home, it is a scalable system. means that they are indeed aiming for HT also. I was only speculating thusfar!

[Erwin.BE]

Sept 12, 2012 22:31:38 GMT -5 zaphod2012 said:

anyone know if the XMC and RMC will have headphone socket, or the UMC-200/500?

This old prototype pic suggests it does.

Attachments:

[Erwin.BE]

www.audioholics.com/reviews/amplifiers/sherbourn-pt-7030-preamp-amplifiers-video

The RMC-1's half-brother by Sherbourn... only 7.2 though.

[jerrin]

Sept 14, 2012 6:34:15 GMT -5 Erwin.BE said:

Sept 11, 2012 20:53:13 GMT -5 deewan said:

And now, back to the RMC discussion.

This is all relevant to the RMC-1, because what's the point in investing in expensive electronics if the room is flawed...

I could not agree more. I think this is what one will need to do in order to really use the RMC's advantages over the XMC.

[traider79]

My room acoustics are terrible but I am not planning living here for more than a year so next time around my room will be good.

[bootman]

Sept 13, 2012 18:31:23 GMT -5 dean70 said:

Actually most BluRay content is at 23.976fps. Playing at 24hz will introduce a slight judder every 40secs or so.

True 24 FPS displays (and not those that will accept a 24fps signal and do 3:2 pull down anyway) should actually be at the correct framerate since that is the NTSC rate for "24fps".

[AudioHTIT]

Sept 14, 2012 11:20:37 GMT -5 jerrin said:

Sept 14, 2012 6:34:15 GMT -5 Erwin.BE said:

This is all relevant to the RMC-1, because what's the point in investing in expensive electronics if the room is flawed...

I could not agree more. I think this is what one will need to do in order to really use the RMC's advantages over the XMC.

On the other hand some people just appreciate a good piece of gear. While Emotiva has built its reputation on good value the RMC-1 will be their all out effort - I can see wanting to own it even if you couldn't hear the difference over the XMC-1. I will be buying an XMC but I could see buying the RMC in the future even if I didn't think it would sound better (though there would probably be something else that 'grabs' me).

[jerrin]

Sept 14, 2012 12:00:02 GMT -5 AudioHTIT said:

Sept 14, 2012 11:20:37 GMT -5 jerrin said:

I could not agree more. I think this is what one will need to do in order to really use the RMC's advantages over the XMC.

On the other hand some people just appreciate a good piece of gear. While Emotiva has built its reputation on good value the RMC-1 will be their all out effort - I can see wanting to own it even if you couldn't hear the difference over the XMC-1. I will be buying an XMC but I could see buying the RMC in the future even if I didn't think it would sound better (though there would probably be something else that 'grabs' me).

Of course. But that approach does not lend itself towards appreciating the finer differences between pieces of equipment. That's really all I was saying.

People should buy the RMC or XMC if they want to. It's that simple.

[moparmudder]

It is funny that the same people that need to cling to 24fps because it is film like don't feel the same way about audio. No me it would be like saying all movies should be silent because that it how they used to be.

But aside from that I would love to see some one step in and mandate something like 96fps. If the director desiers to have that 24fps look they still can by simply displaying each frame 4 times.

[jamrock]

Never under estimate the power of the privileged few. Whether audio or video, they set the standard of what should be the acceptable, premium standard. However, I do think that plasmas display 24fps at 48fps and also at 96fps possibly. I can't wait to get my hands on the Panasonic PS-65VT50. Rated best for the class too.

[Erwin.BE]

Sept 14, 2012 11:36:47 GMT -5 traider79 said:

My room acoustics are terrible but I am not planning living here for more than a year so next time around my room will be good.

Same here!!!!


;D

[Erwin.BE]

Been snooping around a bit on TacT website... Think I may found out why the RMC-1 will probably be "9.3" or twelve channel in total:

[Removed infected link to Tact]

A lot more to learn from there, maybe a bit old info. They also sell pre-amps which look exactly like Lyngdorf. And Lyngdorf teamed up with Steinway. All expensive stuff, so we are lucky to see TacT in modest priced devices as the XMC-1 and the RMC-1. Okay, the RMC-1 is not going to be cheap but should score very high value for money.

[removed infected link]

www.steinwaylyngdorf.com/

www.lyngdorf.com/