|
Post by kellys on Jan 16, 2017 10:42:58 GMT -5
-1 terrible reply Active front stage is increasingly popular. Plus it may sell additional amps to go along with it. The crossovers, eq, etc are all there in the the channel assignments anyways. And I guarantee the box is already going to support stereo subs similar to other Emotiva products so you are half way there already. I think a totally configurable channel output with active crossovers, PEQ, etc would be great. And then have Dirac run against the active speaker. Similar to the Minidsp DDRC-88BM. Problem is we'd need a LOT more output channels. At least 32. And that would start driving the costs way up. Not sure I'd spring for an $8-12k unit that could accomplish that. You could easily do 7.1.4 with a three way active front stage, given the 16 channels available. This would make 99% of active users happy. No need to make all channels active or have 32 channels made available.
|
|
|
Post by dwaleke on Jan 16, 2017 10:48:15 GMT -5
I think a totally configurable channel output with active crossovers, PEQ, etc would be great. And then have Dirac run against the active speaker. Similar to the Minidsp DDRC-88BM. Problem is we'd need a LOT more output channels. At least 32. And that would start driving the costs way up. Not sure I'd spring for an $8-12k unit that could accomplish that. You could easily do 7.1.4 with a three way active front stage, given the 16 channels available. This would make 99% of active users happy. No need to make all channels active or have 32 channels made available. You could but I want a 3-way active front stage and 2-way active for every other channel. Emotiva is not even sure if the DSP has enough power to run Dirac on all channels at 192. Let alone compute active crossovers, additional PEQ needed for that, etc. Why not FIR filters for active crossovers and EQ? See where this goes. Someone else will come in and want something more.
|
|
|
Post by kellys on Jan 16, 2017 10:53:34 GMT -5
You could easily do 7.1.4 with a three way active front stage, given the 16 channels available. This would make 99% of active users happy. No need to make all channels active or have 32 channels made available. You could but I want a 3-way active front stage and 2-way active for every other channel. Emotiva is not even sure if the DSP has enough power to run Dirac on all channels at 192. Let alone compute active crossovers, additional PEQ needed for that, etc. Why not FIR filters for active crossovers and EQ? See where this goes. Someone else will come in and want something more. I think you are the one who wants more I am suggesting a feature that could theoretically be implemented using the existing hardware. I think it could be done with some minimal additional programming.
|
|
|
Post by dwaleke on Jan 16, 2017 11:07:00 GMT -5
You could but I want a 3-way active front stage and 2-way active for every other channel. Emotiva is not even sure if the DSP has enough power to run Dirac on all channels at 192. Let alone compute active crossovers, additional PEQ needed for that, etc. Why not FIR filters for active crossovers and EQ? See where this goes. Someone else will come in and want something more. I think you are the one who wants more I am suggesting a feature that could theoretically be implemented using the existing hardware. I think it could be done with some minimal additional programming. It more than likely can't be done without additional dsp resources. Unless you give up something that is using them. Which was why the xmc-1 could either run Dirac or peq but not both at the same time. Not enough resources.
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Jan 16, 2017 15:06:10 GMT -5
I think a totally configurable channel output with active crossovers, PEQ, etc would be great. And then have Dirac run against the active speaker. Similar to the Minidsp DDRC-88BM. Problem is we'd need a LOT more output channels. At least 32. And that would start driving the costs way up. Not sure I'd spring for an $8-12k unit that could accomplish that. You could easily do 7.1.4 with a three way active front stage, given the 16 channels available. This would make 99% of active users happy. No need to make all channels active or have 32 channels made available. I am going for triple active LCR but I would not give up any Atmos channels for it. Going to use 2 miniDSP 4x10HD. We'd need a 24-ch beast to cover all desired possibilities. Which would not even include 2-way active surrounds. Example: LCR 3-way active crossover = 9 outputs 2 wides / 4 surrounds / 2 rears all passive crossover = 8 outputs 2 heights / 4 TF+TR = 6 outputs 4 subs = 4 outputs total = 27 outputs... So you'd need to have a miniDSP to sum the subs already.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,157
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 16, 2017 15:37:17 GMT -5
While it is theoretically possible to implement this as a feature, the additional programming and development would be far from minimal. Therefore, while I wouldn't rule out the possibility, I don't think it's going to happen. You could but I want a 3-way active front stage and 2-way active for every other channel. Emotiva is not even sure if the DSP has enough power to run Dirac on all channels at 192. Let alone compute active crossovers, additional PEQ needed for that, etc. Why not FIR filters for active crossovers and EQ? See where this goes. Someone else will come in and want something more. I think you are the one who wants more I am suggesting a feature that could theoretically be implemented using the existing hardware. I think it could be done with some minimal additional programming.
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Jan 16, 2017 16:57:19 GMT -5
Holy Deja Vu Batman, did the needle skip? Here we go again with the same long-winded Keith/Yves MQA battle as on pages 23, 24, etc...
|
|
novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,340
|
Post by novisnick on Jan 16, 2017 17:04:09 GMT -5
Holy Deja Vu Batman, did the needle skip? Here we go again with the same long-winded Keith/Yves MQA battle as on pages 23, 24, etc... At least they both finally agree that vinyl sounds best!!
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Jan 16, 2017 17:44:12 GMT -5
All right, back to the RMC-1 then. [[ Quick before anyone realizes that we're short-circuiting the MQA argument! ]]
So it sounds like the upcoming XMC-2 will share some of the RMC-1 architectural features according to an earlier note from Dan. Notably that all of the outputs will be Balanced and that the Left/Center/Right Channels will be fully differential. Will the Left/Center/Right use the same AK DACs? Will the XMC-2 use the same SHARC DSP?
I ask because I'm pretty much stuck with a 5.1 system + Zone 2 for the foreseeable future and only my Left/Center/Right Legacies really deserve the benefits of super fancy DACs and fully differential operation. But, if the RMC-1 will have better DACs, etc., I'm fully stupid enough to just pull the trigger on the RMC-1 ... :-)
Casey
|
|
|
Post by jdaddabbo on Jan 17, 2017 10:52:41 GMT -5
Yes, we simply want a choice of 7.3.6 -OR- 9.3.4 for a Total of 16 channels. ...... but more importantly the OPTION to choose should exist.. as this would ALSO benefit Emotiva since they would then grab business from BOTH parties I agree that's a desired thing. I can only assume it's totally doable, but a more technically apt person will need to chime in here to confirm. And like I said, I think Emotiva certainly has it in their minds. If I were guessing, I'd have to say I feel differently. I would say that it's at least highly debatable, and totally relies on the physical room (or wife ). But to flip it around a bit on you, let me say this using your words with my new numbers. "I personally feel that more people (rooms) would benefit from 7.1.4 (or even 5.1.4) than they would 9.1." Again this assumes height speakers are even possible in the room (which for many they won't be). Basically speaking, I think for truly immersive surround sound, height channels could/should make a bigger difference than the 7 or 9 (extra 2 or 4 from 5.1) wall channels. And from my limited experience with going from 5 to 7, in which I found there to be a big difference (even my wife easily noticed), I think ceiling speakers will make quite a difference. I'm not knocking the 9 wide thing at all, and I'll bet it sounds awesome, but if I were someone with 5.1 on an upgrade path, I'd go 5.1.4 first if the room allowed, then add on the others later (room and budget choosing which came next). JMO of course. Sorry, however you are not repeating (or reverseing) what I stated. I specifically stated that Wides would likely be an improvement over a increase from x.x.4 to x.x.6 in most rooms. So in fact I agree with you that one should 1st do x.x.4 BEFORE doing Wides, but that Wides would more often be a bigger improvement than a change from x.x.4 to x.x.6 Agree? ...or not
|
|
|
Post by rhale64 on Jan 17, 2017 11:02:17 GMT -5
I agree with this above
|
|
|
Post by jdaddabbo on Jan 17, 2017 11:11:03 GMT -5
Yes it is "I'm sure you know that x.3.x is not correct nomenclature". x.3.x is different from x.1.x (or x.2.x) in that each represents (SHOULD represent for some manufacturers do not follow the correct protocol) the # of LFE channels where all three of the following are provided independently for each LFE channel - Volume, Phase and Distance. (and not just internally Y-cabled, which would make it x.1.x regardless of how many "physical" LFE connections their may be out back). One must have full independent control over Volume, Phase and Distance in order to do Multi-Sub properly.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Jan 17, 2017 11:15:41 GMT -5
Sorry, however you are not repeating (or reverseing) what I stated. I specifically stated that Wides would likely be an improvement over a increase from x.x.4 to x.x.6 in most rooms. So in fact I agree with you that one should 1st do x.x.4 BEFORE doing Wides, but that Wides would more often be a bigger improvement than a change from x.x.4 to x.x.6 Agree? ...or not Ah, okay, I think I get it. So you are basically saying more like this: Start with 7.1.4, then go to 9.1.4, then 9.1.6 (Rather than 7.1.4, 7.1.6, then 9.1.6). Yes? No? I think the farther down the road people go, the less noticeable improvements will happen. The law of diminishing returns applies. While you could certainly be in fact 100% correct, I don't think I'm in a position (knowledgeable enough) to either agree or disagree. By the time you get to that many channels in a household system, I'm not sure it would be a "given" either way. I think the room itself might start dictating the proper way to proceed. But again, I'm basically just guessing at that point.
|
|
|
Post by jdaddabbo on Jan 17, 2017 11:43:04 GMT -5
Sorry, however you are not repeating (or reverseing) what I stated. I specifically stated that Wides would likely be an improvement over a increase from x.x.4 to x.x.6 in most rooms. So in fact I agree with you that one should 1st do x.x.4 BEFORE doing Wides, but that Wides would more often be a bigger improvement than a change from x.x.4 to x.x.6 Agree? ...or not Ah, okay, I think I get it. So you are basically saying more like this: Start with 7.1.4, then go to 9.1.4, then 9.1.6 (Rather than 7.1.4, 7.1.6, then 9.1.6). Yes? No? I think the farther down the road people go, the less noticeable improvements will happen. The law of diminishing returns applies. While you could certainly be in fact 100% correct, I don't think I'm in a position (knowledgeable enough) to either agree or disagree. By the time you get to that many channels in a household system, I'm not sure it would be a "given" either way. I think the room itself might start dictating the proper way to proceed. But again, I'm basically just guessing at that point. Yes I've been doing 7.2 (Lexicon Logic-7) before most had even started doing 5.1 systems. By the way, Lexicon's Logic-7 did make 7 over 5 very much worth it (the Side Surrounds correctly placed a full 15° forward / i.e. 75° with a slight angle towards the rear). The Logic-7 then used these Side Surrounds for both Side Surrounds and Front Wides as it sent hard Front Left and Right ambient sounds to the Side Surrounds. Sorry, but no one ever did 7.1 better than Lexicon (which also had a Center Split taking info below the Center crossover and splitting it out to both Front Left & Right speakers). I then moved right into DSX Wides (60° with Side Surrounds back to the 90°position given it was no longer a Lexicon processor). I then moved into / purchased TWO identical preamp processors to run them Simultaneously in order to have ONE produce 7.1.4 and the Other 9.1.2 (since no units would do 9.1.4), however it did NOT work as I had hoped for each unit was making "consessions" for not having the missing Channel, and therefore the End Result was most often flawed. But you can't blame a guy for trying So for a very long time now, I have been awaiting for 9.3.4 (I run 3 Subs currently using external processing). This Emotiva RMC-1 may finally be my Ticket, and with Full Dirac... WOW, what a ticket it shall be!!!
|
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Jan 17, 2017 17:31:34 GMT -5
Ah, okay, I think I get it. So you are basically saying more like this: Start with 7.1.4, then go to 9.1.4, then 9.1.6 (Rather than 7.1.4, 7.1.6, then 9.1.6). Yes? No? I think the farther down the road people go, the less noticeable improvements will happen. The law of diminishing returns applies. While you could certainly be in fact 100% correct, I don't think I'm in a position (knowledgeable enough) to either agree or disagree. By the time you get to that many channels in a household system, I'm not sure it would be a "given" either way. I think the room itself might start dictating the proper way to proceed. But again, I'm basically just guessing at that point. Yes I've been doing 7.2 (Lexicon Logic-7) before most had even started doing 5.1 systems. By the way, Lexicon's Logic-7 did make 7 over 5 very much worth it (the Side Surrounds correctly placed a full 15° forward / i.e. 75° with a slight angle towards the rear). The Logic-7 then used these Side Surrounds for both Side Surrounds and Front Wides as it sent hard Front Left and Right ambient sounds to the Side Surrounds. Sorry, but no one ever did 7.1 better than Lexicon (which also had a Center Split taking info below the Center crossover and splitting it out to both Front Left & Right speakers). I then moved right into DSX Wides (60° with Side Surrounds back to the 90°position given it was no longer a Lexicon processor). I then moved into / purchased TWO identical preamp processors to run them Simultaneously in order to have ONE produce 7.1.4 and the Other 9.1.2 (since no units would do 9.1.4), however it did NOT work as I had hoped for each unit was making "consessions" for not having the missing Channel, and therefore the End Result was most often flawed. But you can't blame a guy for trying So for a very long time now, I have been awaiting for 9.3.4 (I run 3 Subs currently using external processing). This Emotiva RMC-1 may finally be my Ticket, and with Full Dirac... WOW, what a ticket it shall be!!! Fingers crossed! BTW, where are the 3 subs in your room?
|
|
|
Post by audiosyndrome on Jan 17, 2017 19:20:38 GMT -5
All right, back to the RMC-1 then. [[ Quick before anyone realizes that we're short-circuiting the MQA argument! ]] So it sounds like the upcoming XMC-2 will share some of the RMC-1 architectural features according to an earlier note from Dan. Notably that all of the outputs will be Balanced and that the Left/Center/Right Channels will be fully differential. Will the Left/Center/Right use the same AK DACs? Will the XMC-2 use the same SHARC DSP? I ask because I'm pretty much stuck with a 5.1 system + Zone 2 for the foreseeable future and only my Left/Center/Right Legacies really deserve the benefits of super fancy DACs and fully differential operation. But, if the RMC-1 will have better DACs, etc., I'm fully stupid enough to just pull the trigger on the RMC-1 ... :-) Casey But will better (?) DACs have an audible difference in the sound? I doubt it. We beat this to death already. Russ
|
|
ekpen
Minor Hero
Posts: 43
|
Post by ekpen on Jan 18, 2017 19:52:34 GMT -5
GreetingS
New here, first time posting:
I am coming from Pioneer Elite SC-09, one of the early adopters in 2008. I sold it because it did not have the ability to switch 3D, so it became obsolete. I have been without an AVR for almost 4 years. Now I am very excited about the RMC-1. I have a suggestion to Dan or the engineers. Looking at the competing brand Storm Audio with 32 channels capability, why not either increase the RU height by 2 or 3 RU(s) and add 16 more channels or create a companion unit RMC-2 to compete with the Storm Audio and any other brands that might come up with 32 channels. At the moment, I already have 22 channels mapped out for my new system. In fact , after 2016 Thanksgiving, I purchased from Crutchfield, a pair of Sanus CFR2136 racks and some custom retracting shelves to have two Amps and a good SSP. I will like to have my SSP to be future proof, NOT to experience the sudden death of my $6000.00 Pioneer Elite SC-09. If Dan and the engineers can have two models with maybe xlr with db25 options, will be appreciated. We also need other codecs like Auro 3D, etc, chrome cast built in, 3D switching. I plan on getting two amps, was looking at the Yamaha 5000 models, but if Emotiva can make the 14 or 11 channels affordable, I might get the Trio from Dan. Keep up the good work. I am impressed by your engineering endeavors.
You may get my $$, all things being equal.
Thanks. George.
|
|
|
Post by audiosyndrome on Jan 18, 2017 20:19:19 GMT -5
George- Emotiva is shooting for a $5k price, not $10k or $15k. And they're not shooting for the custom install market. You need to look elsewhere.
Russ
|
|
emovac
Emo VIPs
Saeed al-Sahhaf
Posts: 2,456
|
Post by emovac on Jan 18, 2017 20:37:46 GMT -5
THE CONVERSATION ABOUT MQA HAS BEEN MOVED TO HERE:
(New) Audio Technologies \ MQA \ Everything you wanted to know about MQA emotivalounge.proboards.com/thread/49166/PLEASE POST ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE SUBJECT THERE! (I will come back and move more of the older posts on the topic there later)
In regards to the RMC-1 and the XMC-1: We currently have no plans to include support for MQA in any of our products.
MQA is an interesting technology. However, at the moment, it seems unclear how well it will succeed in the audio market, and what directions that success might take. We will reconsider the possibility of including it in our products if and when we feel a significant number of our customers consider it to add value. (At the moment MQA seems to hold obvious value for streaming services like Tidal, but whether it will succeed as a format for general music mastering and release seems less certain.)
Thanks for posting the information. Schiit Audio has taken the same position about not adopting MQA. MQA DACs are available.....and if it takes off, might be worth Emotiva reconsidering. I think it will advance quicker and more readily than DSD, mostly through streaming.
|
|