|
|
Post by altloff on Aug 14, 2015 9:14:02 GMT -5
I'm hoping that DTS-X and basic customer dissatisfaction with 7.2.4 pushes for the advancements sooner than later, sounds like the XMR-1 base can handle it, it just has to be available to them.
"I just want six tops/heights....
Is that to much to ask...."
Lol
I was originally in the Auro camp simply because of Front Heights, Surround Heights and Rear Heights, and no Rears at all, bed or height was a huge let down.
|
|
|
|
Post by bradford on Aug 14, 2015 16:19:29 GMT -5
To me, one of the thing to keep in mind is that Datasat and Trinov's current restrictions are based on the tech that was available when the were released, hopefully by the time the XMR-1 is released those limitations will have changed and the units updated accordingly before they are out. You would have to think that Emo was at least thinking the same thing or has some kind of plan for an upgrade after the fact, otherwise why even bother with 16 channels, even 9.3.4 is ridiculous, there's no need for 3 LFE outputs, 2 individual is more than enough, hell one is enough, it's just LFE. The Trinov doesn't have these restrictions since it is purely software based.
But yes the development lifecycle of the current shipping products probably started 24 months ago the code for Atmos was only released to the DSP manufacturers around Feb/Mar of last year at that point there was little understanding of the codecs overhead requirements. That is rumored to be one of the reasons why Onkyo had to drop Auydessy because their DSP couldn't keep up.
I don't want history to repeat itself with lots of promises, then a product that is significantly scaled back.
It will be a sad day if Emotiva releases the XMR-1 as a 7.1.4 channel product in 2016. How do you possibly backtrack from that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unless someone has some inside knowledge of Dolby and MDS I don't think its a given that the referenced chip can't run a release of Atmos for DSP capable of supporting 15 channels. The chip says it supports 15 primary channels, the limitation may well be in the initial release of Atmos for the DSP platform which had to accommodate the big box CE companies, all of which had 11 channel limitations.
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs 
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Aug 15, 2015 2:16:59 GMT -5
bradford, when quoting you have to manually put your cursor below the quote or else you type in the quote... It's a small bug from the board.
To bad KeithL keeps his lips sealed. I am sure he must be tempted to chime in... Come on Keith, be a sport! Release us!
|
|
|
|
Post by rhale64 on Aug 15, 2015 21:55:19 GMT -5
Yes a little info would be great to hear.
|
|
|
|
Post by djoel on Aug 15, 2015 22:25:45 GMT -5
As my 4 year daughter would say, a little bit goes a long way! I m sure that applies here  Dan |
|
|
|
Post by rhale64 on Sept 15, 2015 19:10:20 GMT -5
Somebody in the other thread said he called Emotiva and they said it would be a couple more years before they come out with another processor. What the heck. They and Dts say early 2016. But now someone at Emotiva is saying a couple more years?
|
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Sept 16, 2015 5:44:03 GMT -5
Somebody in the other thread said he called Emotiva and they said it would be a couple more years before they come out with another processor. What the heck. They and Dts say early 2016. But now someone at Emotiva is saying a couple more years? Mmm ; can understand managing expectations but that one did hurt a tad ; some clarification would be nice - whens the next podcast  |
|
|
|
Post by deewan on Sept 16, 2015 7:57:18 GMT -5
Somebody in the other thread said he called Emotiva and they said it would be a couple more years before they come out with another processor. What the heck. They and Dts say early 2016. But now someone at Emotiva is saying a couple more years? If I were Emotiva and I was asked to give a timeline for the XMR I would say "a couple more years" as well. After all the chaos on the boards with the XMC-1 dates/deadlines given. I would be shocked if Emotiva gives any actual dates until the thing is being produced. Under promise and over deliver. That is the only way Emotiva can keep some of the people hear from sounding the "But... but... you said it would be ready on ______. And if it isn't ready I'm going to buy a ______ because I can't possibly wait and enjoy the gear I currently own!"  Also, take with a grain of salt anyone who posts that they called and Emotiva told them something. It is very possible Emotiva did tell them. But it is also VERY possible they never called and simply want to stir the pot. If you really need to know something, call and ask. That's what I've done and the fine folks at Emotiva have been very nice and told me what they can about things I question. |
|
|
|
Post by djoel on Sept 16, 2015 9:11:13 GMT -5
Yup, I've called Oppo about their first Blu ray player when all the HDDVD fiasco was going on, they sorta said they did not have a time line yet or even thought of making a HD player. 8 months later it was announced they had a player coming to the market.
I also called just a few months ago asking some random questions,and through in during the conversation when do they'll think we'll see a 4K player they said perhaps late last quarter of 16, but from the pause in his voice he made it sound like they're weren't all that interested in a 4K player.
I think this is the apporch Emotiva is taking these day, being coy like this no one gets their feelings hurt!
Dan
|
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Sept 16, 2015 11:33:35 GMT -5
If I were Emotiva and I was asked to give a timeline for the XMR I would say "a couple more years" as well. After all the chaos on the boards with the XMC-1 dates/deadlines given. I would be shocked if Emotiva gives any actual dates until the thing is being produced. Hey ; we wont get any info out of them if you dont sound desperate  |
|
|
|
Post by rtg97229 on Sept 16, 2015 16:58:09 GMT -5
Why are people so against having more than 1 LFE chan? Do people hate having more than one sub or do they just not like having them well integrated with each other? Of course having every chan be assignable would be great if there was a way to do that without confusing the hell out of a consumer user base.
|
|
|
|
Post by rhale64 on Sept 16, 2015 20:31:04 GMT -5
Why are people so against having more than 1 LFE chan? Do people hate having more than one sub or do they just not like having them well integrated with each other? Of course having every chan be assignable would be great if there was a way to do that without confusing the hell out of a consumer user base. No I think most like multiple subs. I have 1 but want 2 sealed subs. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 17, 2015 11:45:51 GMT -5
I wanted to respond to two different comments here (forgive me for not quoting them individually to their originators).
I'm hoping that DTS-X and basic customer dissatisfaction with 7.2.4 pushes for the advancements sooner than later, sounds like the XMR-1 base can handle it, it just has to be available to them.
Why are people so against having more than 1 LFE chan? Do people hate having more than one sub or do they just not like having them well integrated with each other? Of course having every chan be assignable would be great if there was a way to do that without confusing the hell out of a consumer user base.
-------
I guess I'm reading different things into the somewhat lackluster acceptance of Atmos than many of you.
Before Atmos, about 2/3 of all "serious home theater system owners" were still using 5.1 - and less than half had even extended that to 7.1 .
And, now that Atmos is "out", a lot of people seem simply to not feel like the improvement they get with it is worth the bother of installing extra speakers.
(And many seem to think that the various "sidecar" speaker solutions currently available simply don't work that well.)
So "the basic dissatisfaction" seems to simply be that they aren't as impressed with it as they thought they would be.
That being the case, I'm not at all convinced that DTS-X is going to somehow "make it all worth the bother".
We'll all have to wait and see if it lives up to expectations.
Maybe I'm in a minority, but, when I go to a theater, I really don't notice how many channels they're using.
Some theaters sound really great; a lot sound just so-so; and a few sound downright lousy.
And, honestly, I don't notice a huge improvement in the ones that sound really great when they add a few more surround channels;
and I also don't notice an improvement in the really lousy ones when they add more channels.
And, that being the case, I would appreciate it much more if the ones with bad sound would fix their sound - and simply adding more channels isn't going to do it
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm always going to care more about SOUND QUALITY than "channel count".
(And I don't really consider seven channels, or even five channels, to be "a limitation".)
My personal prediction is that Atmos and DTS-X implementations are going to be divided into two groups:
The first group is those few who have a nice theater room, and can afford good equipment, and "do it up right" - and notice and like the difference.
(For those, we'll have the XMR, and we'll make sure, first and foremost, NOT to compromise sound quality in order to add those extra channels.)
The second group is the sort of people who buy whatever AVR is on sale for $299 at Best Buy....
(And, for those, next year's $299 special will have Atmos and DTS-X, and it'll sound just as crappy as this year's $299 special.)
However, I suspect that the vast majority of people who have really nice 5.1 or 7.1 systems aren't going to scrap them just to add a few more channels.
As for LFE channels.....
The whole basic POINT of using a separate LFE channel and a separate sub is that HUMAN HEARING DOESN'T LOCALIZE LOW FREQUENCY SOUND WELL.
In other words, assuming everything is set up perfectly, you shouldn't be able to tell if you're using one sub or a dozen.
(If, with your eyes closed, you can hear where your sub is - then something is wrong.)
Now, there are all sorts of reasons why, in real life, you can sometimes get better performance with multiple subs.
However, for most people, the added complexity of getting it all right makes multiple subs harder to set up and even harder to get right.
(And, of course, you have to buy more speakers; and you have to find places for them in your room; which also complicates things.)
|
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Sept 17, 2015 12:01:35 GMT -5
I wanted to respond to two different comments here (forgive me for not quoting them individually to their originators). I'm hoping that DTS-X and basic customer dissatisfaction with 7.2.4 pushes for the advancements sooner than later, sounds like the XMR-1 base can handle it, it just has to be available to them. this is great news, yes I agree. The sooner the better!
Why are people so against having more than 1 LFE chan? Do people hate having more than one sub or do they just not like having them well integrated with each other? Of course having every chan be assignable would be great if there was a way to do that without confusing the hell out of a consumer user base. ------- I guess I'm reading different things into the somewhat lackluster acceptance of Atmos than many of you. Before Atmos, about 2/3 of all "serious home theater system owners" were still using 5.1 - and less than half had even extended that to 7.1 . And, now that Atmos is "out", a lot of people seem simply to not feel like the improvement they get with it is worth the bother of installing extra speakers. (And many seem to think that the various "sidecar" speaker solutions currently available simply don't work that well.) So "the basic dissatisfaction" seems to simply be that they aren't as impressed with it as they thought they would be. That being the case, I'm not at all convinced that DTS-X is going to somehow "make it all worth the bother". We'll all have to wait and see if it lives up to expectations. Maybe I'm in a minority, but, when I go to a theater, I really don't notice how many channels they're using. Some theaters sound really great; a lot sound just so-so; and a few sound downright lousy. And, honestly, I don't notice a huge improvement in the ones that sound really great when they add a few more surround channels; and I also don't notice an improvement in the really lousy ones when they add more channels. And, that being the case, I would appreciate it much more if the ones with bad sound would fix their sound - and simply adding more channels isn't going to do it I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm always going to care more about SOUND QUALITY than "channel count". (And I don't really consider seven channels, or even five channels, to be "a limitation".) Without the sound quality, dont bother me!My personal prediction is that Atmos and DTS-X implementations are going to be divided into two groups: The first group is those few who have a nice theater room, and can afford good equipment, and "do it up right" - and notice and like the difference. (For those, we'll have the XMR, and we'll make sure, first and foremost, NOT to compromise sound quality in order to add those extra channels.) If more speakers makes it worth while,,,,,Im in. Otherwise, theres nothing to see (hear) here! The second group is the sort of people who buy whatever AVR is on sale for $299 at Best Buy.... (And, for those, next year's $299 special will have Atmos and DTS-X, and it'll sound just as crappy as this year's $299 special.) However, I suspect that the vast majority of people who have really nice 5.1 or 7.1 systems aren't going to scrap them just to add a few more channels. But if the added speakers can intigrate, im still in. As for LFE channels..... The whole basic POINT of using a separate LFE channel and a separate sub is that HUMAN HEARING DOESN'T LOCALIZE LOW FREQUENCY SOUND WELL. In other words, assuming everything is set up perfectly, you shouldn't be able to tell if you're using one sub or a dozen. (If, with your eyes closed, you can hear where your sub is - then something is wrong.) Now, there are all sorts of reasons why, in real life, you can sometimes get better performance with multiple subs. However, for most people, the added complexity of getting it all right makes multiple subs harder to set up and even harder to get right. (And, of course, you have to buy more speakers; and you have to find places for them in your room; which also complicates things.) If i want and have time to play with it, well then,,,,,,let me play! |
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Sept 17, 2015 12:54:36 GMT -5
I wanted to respond to two different comments here (forgive me for not quoting them individually to their originators). I'm hoping that DTS-X and basic customer dissatisfaction with 7.2.4 pushes for the advancements sooner than later, sounds like the XMR-1 base can handle it, it just has to be available to them. this is great news, yes I agree. The sooner the better!
Nick dont get to enthusiastic mate ; just to clarify that quote wasnt Keiths but altloffs wish; his take on this is below the ----- |
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Sept 17, 2015 13:27:58 GMT -5
Reply to the quote below the quote or else it's hard to read.... Nick dont get to enthusiastic mate ; just to clarify that quote wasnt Keiths but altloffs wish; his take on this is below the ----- |
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Sept 17, 2015 13:36:48 GMT -5
I wanted to respond to two different comments here (forgive me for not quoting them individually to their originators). I'm hoping that DTS-X and basic customer dissatisfaction with 7.2.4 pushes for the advancements sooner than later, sounds like the XMR-1 base can handle it, it just has to be available to them. Why are people so against having more than 1 LFE chan? Do people hate having more than one sub or do they just not like having them well integrated with each other? Of course having every chan be assignable would be great if there was a way to do that without confusing the hell out of a consumer user base. ------- I guess I'm reading different things into the somewhat lackluster acceptance of Atmos than many of you. Before Atmos, about 2/3 of all "serious home theater system owners" were still using 5.1 - and less than half had even extended that to 7.1 . And, now that Atmos is "out", a lot of people seem simply to not feel like the improvement they get with it is worth the bother of installing extra speakers. (And many seem to think that the various "sidecar" speaker solutions currently available simply don't work that well.) So "the basic dissatisfaction" seems to simply be that they aren't as impressed with it as they thought they would be. That being the case, I'm not at all convinced that DTS-X is going to somehow "make it all worth the bother". We'll all have to wait and see if it lives up to expectations. Maybe I'm in a minority, but, when I go to a theater, I really don't notice how many channels they're using. Some theaters sound really great; a lot sound just so-so; and a few sound downright lousy. And, honestly, I don't notice a huge improvement in the ones that sound really great when they add a few more surround channels; and I also don't notice an improvement in the really lousy ones when they add more channels. And, that being the case, I would appreciate it much more if the ones with bad sound would fix their sound - and simply adding more channels isn't going to do it I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm always going to care more about SOUND QUALITY than "channel count". (And I don't really consider seven channels, or even five channels, to be "a limitation".) My personal prediction is that Atmos and DTS-X implementations are going to be divided into two groups: The first group is those few who have a nice theater room, and can afford good equipment, and "do it up right" - and notice and like the difference. (For those, we'll have the XMR, and we'll make sure, first and foremost, NOT to compromise sound quality in order to add those extra channels.) The second group is the sort of people who buy whatever AVR is on sale for $299 at Best Buy.... (And, for those, next year's $299 special will have Atmos and DTS-X, and it'll sound just as crappy as this year's $299 special.) However, I suspect that the vast majority of people who have really nice 5.1 or 7.1 systems aren't going to scrap them just to add a few more channels. As for LFE channels..... The whole basic POINT of using a separate LFE channel and a separate sub is that HUMAN HEARING DOESN'T LOCALIZE LOW FREQUENCY SOUND WELL. In other words, assuming everything is set up perfectly, you shouldn't be able to tell if you're using one sub or a dozen. (If, with your eyes closed, you can hear where your sub is - then something is wrong.) Now, there are all sorts of reasons why, in real life, you can sometimes get better performance with multiple subs. However, for most people, the added complexity of getting it all right makes multiple subs harder to set up and even harder to get right. (And, of course, you have to buy more speakers; and you have to find places for them in your room; which also complicates things.) Keith, I agree. But I hope you're not going to limit the channel count because of sound quality. I watched the recent interview on HT Geeks with mister Johansson from Dirac. Dirac Unison will use speakers to actively counter acoustic issues caused by other speakers. Hence you need more speakers, not less! The issue here was the choice between 13.3 or 15.1. I guess I could live with 13.3 if this meant clever use (Dirac Unison) of those three sub channels, summing them for one killer LFE output. I"ll leave it to you to decide which gives the superior SQ: 13.3 or 15.1... |
|
|
|
Post by rtg97229 on Sept 17, 2015 14:13:21 GMT -5
As for LFE channels..... The whole basic POINT of using a separate LFE channel and a separate sub is that HUMAN HEARING DOESN'T LOCALIZE LOW FREQUENCY SOUND WELL. In other words, assuming everything is set up perfectly, you shouldn't be able to tell if you're using one sub or a dozen. (If, with your eyes closed, you can hear where your sub is - then something is wrong.) Now, there are all sorts of reasons why, in real life, you can sometimes get better performance with multiple subs. However, for most people, the added complexity of getting it all right makes multiple subs harder to set up and even harder to get right. (And, of course, you have to buy more speakers; and you have to find places for them in your room; which also complicates things.) I think you missed my point about LFE. I know what it is for any why. My question was why some people where so persistent in having only one LFE or one split LFE. For making the setup simple for the end user I think having more than one LFE with each applying their their own factors and delays is better than having to split the same LFE chan. Also notice that I said ideally all channels would be assignable but I don't know of a way to make that user friendly. |
|
|
|
Post by rtg97229 on Sept 17, 2015 14:23:34 GMT -5
The second group is the sort of people who buy whatever AVR is on sale for $299 at Best Buy.... (And, for those, next year's $299 special will have Atmos and DTS-X, and it'll sound just as crappy as this year's $299 special.) The $299 AVR is too expensive, they are out of date in a year. People in that market would do better to get a UMC-200 and keep if for the next 4 to 5 years.  Anyway I think the reason people are happy about DTS-X is that you don't need to have more than 5.1, it is scalable to your setup. Dolby said the same thing about Atmos but people don't seem to believe them. |
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Sept 17, 2015 14:30:35 GMT -5
As for LFE channels..... The whole basic POINT of using a separate LFE channel and a separate sub is that HUMAN HEARING DOESN'T LOCALIZE LOW FREQUENCY SOUND WELL. In other words, assuming everything is set up perfectly, you shouldn't be able to tell if you're using one sub or a dozen. (If, with your eyes closed, you can hear where your sub is - then something is wrong.) Now, there are all sorts of reasons why, in real life, you can sometimes get better performance with multiple subs. However, for most people, the added complexity of getting it all right makes multiple subs harder to set up and even harder to get right. (And, of course, you have to buy more speakers; and you have to find places for them in your room; which also complicates things.) I think you missed my point about LFE. I know what it is for any why. My question was why some people where so persistent in having only one LFE or one split LFE. For making the setup simple for the end user I think having more than one LFE with each applying their their own factors and delays is better than having to split the same LFE chan. Also notice that I said ideally all channels would be assignable but I don't know of a way to make that user friendly. I don't want to sound pedantic, but there is only LFE. You mean multiple subs. |
|
