bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Jan 30, 2014 14:11:54 GMT -5
I know what kind of post this and your previous one here as well. You are better than this markus. Don't be an a-hole when I know you have much useful knowledge to share. And you think calling me names will bring out the best in me? Not really. I'm an a-hole at times myself. Case in point I should not have called you names and hurt your feelings.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 30, 2014 14:13:26 GMT -5
Wrong thread? By the way, it's Audyssey not Audissey. We can't have anyone from Dirac posting information related to the XMC-1.... in a thread about the release of the XMC-1! I'm sure your spelling correction is appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 30, 2014 14:13:56 GMT -5
I'm from Dirac Research and my point of view is admittedly biased, but to sweeten the waiting I'd like to explain why Dirac Live in its XMC-1 incarnation, is different from traditional good minimum-phase solutions like Audissey and others. Let me quote an excerpt from the REW's measurement software developer site (www.hometheatershack.com): "Minimum phase systems can be inverted, which means that a filter can be designed that, if applied to the system, would produce a flat response and correct the phase response at the same time. That is clearly a nice property to find if we want to apply EQ. If we apply EQ to a system that is not minimum phase, or more particularly in a region where it is not minimum phase, the EQ will not produce the results we would like. It may still be possible to achieve a flat response, but correcting the phase response would elude us. It is simply not possible" On the contrary Dirac Live is a mixed-phase solution so it can successfully apply a full bandwidth correction of room behaviour, which is mixed-phase. We explain that as follows: "Infinitely many different filters can be designed to have the exact same magnitude response. They differ only in their impulse response. Therefore, it is useful to classify filters according to how their impulse responses behave. Two commonly used filter classes in audio applications are minimum-phase filters and linear-phase filters. They are two special cases that are relatively easy to design, but that come with tightly constrained impulse response characteristics. A minimum-phase filter, by definition, is constrained to apply only the smallest possible delay to the signal given a desired magnitude response. A linear-phase filter, by definition, applies a delay which is constant across the whole frequency range. Therefore, neither of these two filter designs can make a desired change to the phase or impulse response, unless the desired change is exactly the particular change they make by definition. Minimum-phase and linear-phase filters may even worsen both the impulse response and the magnitude response of a system, simply by applying their magnitude response corrections at the wrong time. A more difficult design task is to make a mixed-phase filter that matches a desired magnitude response while also having a customized impulse response. A properly designed mixed-phase filter can make significant improvements to the impulse response of a sound system at the listening position" Ciao, Flavio The information about Dirac is appreciated!
|
|
|
Post by teklock on Jan 30, 2014 14:15:30 GMT -5
It's all good..
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,214
|
Post by geebo on Jan 30, 2014 14:16:05 GMT -5
Or maybe HDMI 2.0 will solve many of the issues inherent in the previous HDCP & HDMI implementations Yes, sure, all of them. It's quite refreshing to see that in Emotivaland everything looks so much brighter than in real life. I'm jealous You got a not so bright life? Sorry to hear that but not surprised.
|
|
|
Post by Mickboy on Jan 30, 2014 14:20:07 GMT -5
Hi Flavio..welcome! We look forward to Dirac. One of our members did some measurements that backed up what you say about superiority of Dirac's approach vs that of Audyssey (however it is spelled...I can never get it right). Mark Now this is interesting. Could you post a link where the "superiority of Dirac's approach " was shown? Uh Oh, I thought coming over from the S Hoffman site I'd be leaving this kinda bad karma there. Next we're going to be flamed by the OPPO patrol!! LOL!! (lighten up AAAHHHHH). HAPPY BIRTHDAY DANIEL!!!! MICKBOY,Who is getting his Sherbourn CD-1 next Tuesday.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Jan 30, 2014 14:25:00 GMT -5
You bring up a valid point, you do have a lot of sources with which you would like to use analog inputs. Choice is always important. I love having choices! And I really don't understand why that would have been an issue. I think most people out there would rather have a little bit bigger unit and have every input imaginable than to worry about cramming it into a smaller space. For people needing a lot of inputs for a lot of equipment, needing physical space is most likely last on the priority list. Oh yes, I have that now. That's part of the reason why I don't even need HDMI at all. Please see my next full post I'm going to make below. Nice pitch!!! But right now, at this exact time, I can't buy anything. I just spent $3000 on my new TV so my budget is nill right now. My money this year will be tied up buying every incarnation of the Led Zeppelin reissues. I'm just going to kick back and wait for all the reviews etc. of the XMC-1 to role in. I currently have everything working just fine on my totally NON-HDMI Denon receiver (switcher).
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Jan 30, 2014 14:27:43 GMT -5
I think Dan's just trying to do what's best for his customers in this case. lol, that's funny! Well if this isn't a troll post................geesh.
|
|
|
Post by Mickboy on Jan 30, 2014 14:32:52 GMT -5
Well if this isn't a troll post................geesh. Bonzo, you nailed it!! Mickboy
|
|
|
Post by visiter555 on Jan 30, 2014 14:35:24 GMT -5
Personally for me, I have to ask who the frack needs EIGHT HDMI inputs? Please list me a system that would need that many, because I'm curious. Really, I just can't come up with it. Unless you are a gamer with every kind of game system in the world, how do you use up 8 HDMI inputs? In my system I have the following: Sony DVD changer - hdmi Panasonic bluray - hdmi Tivo - hdmi Xbox 360- hdmi Chromcast - hdmi Mac mini - hdmi newest purchase Xbox one - hdmi That is seven for me and I think I'm not that unusual. Could I consolidate some devices? Sure but why should I? My AVR had enough (8) HDMI inputs. Bell HD-PVR Dish HD-PRV Shaw Portal Oppo BDP-103 WD Live Plus Intel SFF Home Theatre Xbox And one HDMI for my DSLR or Videocam That's eight...
|
|
|
Post by chaosrv on Jan 30, 2014 14:40:54 GMT -5
You bring up a valid point, you do have a lot of sources with which you would like to use analog inputs. Choice is always important. I love having choices! And I really don't understand why that would have been an issue. I think most people out there would rather have a little bit bigger unit and have every input imaginable than to worry about cramming it into a smaller space. For people needing a lot of inputs for a lot of equipment, needing physical space is most likely last on the priority list. Oh yes, I have that now. That's part of the reason why I don't even need HDMI at all. Please see my next full post I'm going to make below. Nice pitch!!! But right now, at this exact time, I can't buy anything. I just spent $3000 on my new TV so my budget is nill right now. My money this year will be tied up buying every incarnation of the Led Zeppelin reissues. I'm just going to kick back and wait for all the reviews etc. of the XMC-1 to role in. I currently have everything working just fine on my totally NON-HDMI Denon receiver (switcher). Choices are awesome and I personally do not have an issue with a larger piece of equipment. I was thinking more along the lines of increased product & development costs etc.. though I am sure there are some out there that could not accommodate a 4RU chassis but I would hope they are in the minority. I didn't realize you have a preamp already, good on ya. For convenience (cable set up, really) you cannot beat HDMI but the issues that have plagued the format so far are not entirely worth it so I can see your case for going HDMI free. I don't know if it my Denon receiver or my TC (both 7+ years old) but I get random signal drops which would be non-existent with analog video. The issue going forward on that is you simply cannot buy a new bluray player without HDMI-only video output. Stupid MPAA. If they made more content worth paying for there wouldn't be so much piracy which is the real reason for HDMI/HDCP. I cannot even watch a bluray on my new laptop using anything but an HDMI out. It will not output a video signal from a bluray over VGA. But my frustrations with that sort of stuff is for another thread & day.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Jan 30, 2014 14:42:21 GMT -5
If I bought a brand new processor right now, today, this is how I would probably ultimately want to hook up my system. DirecTV = HDMI and analog* Blu-ray = HDMI and 7.1 analog* Universal SACD DVD-A DVD Player = HDMI, toslink (certain applications) and analog CD Player = Analog & Toslink CD Recorder = Analog (in and out) & Toslink (in and out) Cassette = Analog (in and out) [yes I still use my cassette for old tapes I haven't burned yet] VCR = Analog (in only for me) [yes I still have old videos we watch once in a while] Turntable = Analog 3 HDMI, 8 analog (2 of which are * = so I can make recordings on my CD Recorder) I want to change something here to my own post. I take back the HDMI hooks ups. Right now I don't use any HDMI to my receiver, and you know, it just may stay that way as long as I can leave it. I don't have time right now to list all the options etc (I have to go for a while after this post), but there are a few big reasons why not to use HDMI to the pre-amp. Here's one. By directly running separate HDMI cables from components to the TV, this allows for different picture setting for different components. For example, we usually watch DireTV during the day with blinds open and at night with lights on. But we watch Blu-rays & DVD's at night with the lights turned low or off. Running separate lines allows each input to easily have the brightness & contrast settings be totally different. If we only had one cable coming from the pre-amp, not so. Here's another. The way it is, I can have the TV on watching something while playing music totally separate. This comes in handy when having parties so people can have that visual thing going on if they want it. If I ran it all through the pre-amp, it's one or the other, not both. Gotta runs for now. Be back later. Cheers ---- Bonzo
|
|
|
Post by chaosrv on Jan 30, 2014 14:48:45 GMT -5
If I bought a brand new processor right now, today, this is how I would probably ultimately want to hook up my system. DirecTV = HDMI and analog* Blu-ray = HDMI and 7.1 analog* Universal SACD DVD-A DVD Player = HDMI, toslink (certain applications) and analog CD Player = Analog & Toslink CD Recorder = Analog (in and out) & Toslink (in and out) Cassette = Analog (in and out) [yes I still use my cassette for old tapes I haven't burned yet] VCR = Analog (in only for me) [yes I still have old videos we watch once in a while] Turntable = Analog 3 HDMI, 8 analog (2 of which are * = so I can make recordings on my CD Recorder) I want to change something here to my own post. I take back the HDMI hooks ups. Right now I don't use any HDMI to my receiver, and you know, it just may stay that way as long as I can leave it. I don't have time right now to list all the options etc (I have to go for a while after this post), but there are a few big reasons why not to use HDMI to the pre-amp. Here's one. By directly running separate HDMI cables from components to the TV, this allows for different picture setting for different components. For example, we usually watch DireTV during the day with blinds open and at night with lights on. But we watch Blu-rays & DVD's at night with the lights turned low or off. Running separate lines allows each input to easily have the brightness & contrast settings be totally different. If we only had one cable coming from the pre-amp, not so. Here's another. The way it is, I can have the TV on watching something while playing music totally separate. This comes in handy when having parties so people can have that visual thing going on if they want it. If I ran it all through the pre-amp, it's one or the other, not both. Gotta runs for now. Be back later. Cheers ---- Bonzo I have to say it makes perfect sense. If it works for you, I cannot fault you in the slightest.
|
|
|
Post by teklock on Jan 30, 2014 14:53:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by flak on Jan 30, 2014 14:55:08 GMT -5
Hi Flavio..welcome! We look forward to Dirac. One of our members did some measurements that backed up what you say about superiority of Dirac's approach vs that of Audyssey (however it is spelled...I can never get it right). Mark Now this is interesting. Could you post a link where the "superiority of Dirac's approach " was shown? Hi markusv2, I think that the thread of one of your members that Mark is referring to could be the following one: emotivalounge.proboards.com/thread/33047/thoughts-on-audyssey-multeq-diracI'll be pleased to be back when you will receive your units and it will be possible to discuss your hands on experience and results :-) Flavio
|
|
|
Post by weigle2 on Jan 30, 2014 15:02:55 GMT -5
I hope their HDMI 2.0 implementation will also include HDCP 2.2 ... So we can enjoy even more HDMI related issues? Well said. There are too many already.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Jan 30, 2014 15:03:02 GMT -5
I'm from Dirac Research and my point of view is admittedly biased, but to sweeten the waiting I'd like to explain why Dirac Live in its XMC-1 incarnation, is different from traditional good minimum-phase solutions like Audissey and others. Let me quote an excerpt from the REW's measurement software developer site (www.hometheatershack.com): "Minimum phase systems can be inverted, which means that a filter can be designed that, if applied to the system, would produce a flat response and correct the phase response at the same time. That is clearly a nice property to find if we want to apply EQ. If we apply EQ to a system that is not minimum phase, or more particularly in a region where it is not minimum phase, the EQ will not produce the results we would like. It may still be possible to achieve a flat response, but correcting the phase response would elude us. It is simply not possible" On the contrary Dirac Live is a mixed-phase solution so it can successfully apply a full bandwidth correction of room behaviour, which is mixed-phase. We explain that as follows: "Infinitely many different filters can be designed to have the exact same magnitude response. They differ only in their impulse response. Therefore, it is useful to classify filters according to how their impulse responses behave. Two commonly used filter classes in audio applications are minimum-phase filters and linear-phase filters. They are two special cases that are relatively easy to design, but that come with tightly constrained impulse response characteristics. A minimum-phase filter, by definition, is constrained to apply only the smallest possible delay to the signal given a desired magnitude response. A linear-phase filter, by definition, applies a delay which is constant across the whole frequency range. Therefore, neither of these two filter designs can make a desired change to the phase or impulse response, unless the desired change is exactly the particular change they make by definition. Minimum-phase and linear-phase filters may even worsen both the impulse response and the magnitude response of a system, simply by applying their magnitude response corrections at the wrong time. A more difficult design task is to make a mixed-phase filter that matches a desired magnitude response while also having a customized impulse response. A properly designed mixed-phase filter can make significant improvements to the impulse response of a sound system at the listening position" Ciao, Flavio I'm sure I can speak for many people here when I say thank you for joining us and providing information. We would all love to hear more. I also want to say please don't let this thread scare you off. It has become unusually heated today due to the announcement of the XMC-1 delay. Most of the time this forum is very friendly and a cool place to hang out. Perhaps if you or the mods can just move this topic to a complete new thread about Dirac, then it would be more helpful to all, and get it out of this self destructing thread. Thanks again. Cheers --- Bonzo
|
|
|
Post by weigle2 on Jan 30, 2014 15:06:28 GMT -5
I hope their HDMI 2.0 implementation will also include HDCP 2.2 ... It would be completely worthless without it. I doubt it would be worthless without it. Is it not downward compatible? So, given that it should still work with 1.4/1.4a but not 2.0. How many devices do you think are 2.0 right now?
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Jan 30, 2014 15:08:28 GMT -5
I have to say it makes perfect sense. If it works for you, I cannot fault you in the slightest. Can't fault me? Wow, I'll have to tell my wife that!!! She'll probably make me come back here and type a big list for you. A HUGE list!!! Bottom line, when it comes to a pre-amp/processor/switcher, I want my cake and eat it too. Translation: connections , connections and more connections.
|
|
|
Post by Priapulus on Jan 30, 2014 15:12:51 GMT -5
I don't know, but I do suspect that the legacy inputs caused some of the many problems of the UMC-1. By being only a HDMI switcher, a lot of those problems are avoided in the new models. I certainly don't need them.
|
|