|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Dec 11, 2016 3:11:44 GMT -5
The problem is that every single feature, no matter how simple, carries lots of costs. You got the development costs which is what most people naively look at. But there are the Testing costs as well; those go on forever. Along with the Engineering Maintenance Costs (forever). Possibly (probably) Licensing Costs (also forever). And Sales, Marketing and Support Costs (even if only for Documentation and Support). Every feature needs to justify its costs.
Let's looks at my favorite feature which I've been whining about: I want to stream digital audio into the RMC-1 directly from the Ethernet and have the digital audio data routed directly to the RMC-1 DACs. (Maybe it's Roon, maybe it's DLNA, maybe it's something different.) How many people really want this? The RMC-1 is a "High-End 'Audiophile/Videophile Processor". The market for that is already quite small and any company hoping to address that market is going to have to charge a lot simply because the NRE (Non-Recurring Engineering) costs aren't going to be amortized across a bunch of sales units. If they add my favorite feature, will this attract more sales? Many potential customers of a high-end Processor are already going to want to use external DACs (it a disease of this customer population that it wants to do all this in separates). And the RMC-1 will already have S/PDIF and USB Digital inputs for external digital audio data input. Unless something like Roon becomes a di rigore standard, it simply doesn't make sense for Emotiva to add my favorite feature to the RMC-1.
And I think that this MQA evolving "standard" is on even shakier ground from an Return On Investment basis ...
Casey
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 11, 2016 7:07:07 GMT -5
1..2...3...4.... I declare a thumb war... errrr.
1...2...3...4....Separate thread for MQA.
It doesn't quite rhyme.
MQA sounds interesting - but it's not exactly popular. Personally, I hope the RMC sticks with the essentials - that everyone uses now. Much like Datasat, Trinnov, etc have done.
|
|
|
|
Post by rhale64 on Dec 11, 2016 9:38:44 GMT -5
Ok I will cave. Enough of the ___ talk. Just bring us the best sounding processor money can buy. I will be happy. And I will add my choice of separates for what I want it to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by jevans64 on Dec 11, 2016 10:54:36 GMT -5
Another vote for assignable outputs, namely Wide to Top Middle and Height to Top. Another nice addition would be to have that 3rd sub output independent from the other two. Denon did this with their 5308ci so that anyone having transducers ( ButtKickers ) could fine tune them in the receiver instead of having to have the amp do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Dec 13, 2016 8:39:59 GMT -5
I'm all for adding MQA to a video processor if it only adds a few dollars to the purchase price. From everything that I've seen, it's no better than <insert CODEC here> that no one is using because it's hard to out-do hi-rez files. Bandwidth is cheap and if the only difference between this and the highest resolution version is that it's "smaller" or uses less bandwidth then I see no real market for this product. As for adding "another piece of equipment to get it", that's the point of having separates. It's why we buy processors and pre-amps and DACs and amps and different sources rather than getting everything in a one box solution. This way, when something new comes out, we don't have to buy everything again; just what we want. And, as you said, just my opinion. And we can have differing opinions. For some, more bandwidth isn't available at any price, so I get uncomfortable with throwing out a solution because it 'just saves bandwidth'. If indeed the improvements go beyond smaller file size / lower bandwidth and include audible improvements, then it seems important to consider. It would be interesting to know what it would add to the cost of a device doing a thorough implementation. I've found this discussion interesting and educational, though somewhat wish it was in its own thread, but there's too much good information here now. |
|
|
|
Post by rhale64 on Dec 13, 2016 9:08:01 GMT -5
Ok one last thing on MQA! I have read around the net that a lot of people have heard it. I have heard everything ranging from barely a difference to something is just different about it and it just sounds smoother. Then I have heard it is awesome. But not one time did I ever hear it sounded worse. Or for that matter sounds exactly the same.
I do then hear all the people say these are hand picked demo's so what does all the rest sound like.
So what does all the rest sound like? Has anybody heard a regular version against the remastered MQA version? And if so what were the results?
And if all this needs a separate thread then so be it. I will discuss it over there.
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Dec 13, 2016 9:28:43 GMT -5
Keep all this crap out of the RMC-1. That's why we want separates, so we can add the latest greatest DACs and other things when and if we want to. Stuart of Meridian has for quite some time been trying to develop some patented digital technology and get it ingrained into the industry so that Meridian can bathe in licensing fees. Competition will arise and this will turn into a mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by skiman1 on Dec 14, 2016 0:45:56 GMT -5
Everyone who keeps hoping for the feature they want should remember that Emotiva has announced that they will have the RMC-1 at the 2017 CES.
Starts January 5. That's 24 days away,
Stick a fork in it, it's done. |
|
|
|
Post by rhale64 on Dec 14, 2016 5:12:42 GMT -5
Everyone who keeps hoping for the feature they want should remember that Emotiva has announced that they will have the RMC-1 at the 2017 CES.
Starts January 5. That's 24 days away,
Stick a fork in it, it's done. Great thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 14, 2016 6:18:40 GMT -5
Everyone who keeps hoping for the feature they want should remember that Emotiva has announced that they will have the RMC-1 at the 2017 CES.
Starts January 5. That's 24 days away,
Stick a fork in it, it's done. Where was that announced? That's good news! |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Dec 14, 2016 7:07:12 GMT -5
Keep all this crap out of the RMC-1. That's why we want separates, so we can add the latest greatest DACs and other things when and if we want to. Stuart of Meridian has for quite some time been trying to develop some patented digital technology and get it ingrained into the industry so that Meridian can bathe in licensing fees. Competition will arise and this will turn into a mess. Only problem, I suppose the RMC-1 will have built-in DACs, and, because Dirac Unison as well as Bass Management etc. will be limited to operating in the digital domain, if we want to add the latest and greatest separate DACs then the RMC-1 will need to have digital outputs to allow separate DACs to be connected to it in such way that no additional analog-to-digital / digital-to-analog conversion steps will be introduced into the signal path. Else, it will degrade the signal and that will void the purpose of adding a separate DAC. So if we want to be able to use the digital processing capabilities of the RMC-1 in conjunction with separate DACs without the described loss in quality taking place, some more innovative thinking will be required to hold off competition and to avoid turning our valuable idea of having separates into a mess. That's why I still vote for making the RMC-1 completely modular in this regard, i.e. make the whole internal DAC section unpluggable, the output channels nicely re-assignable, etc. etc. if you don't want to run into any future incompatibility "crap". |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,072
|
Post by klinemj on Dec 14, 2016 7:09:37 GMT -5
Everyone who keeps hoping for the feature they want should remember that Emotiva has announced that they will have the RMC-1 at the 2017 CES.
Starts January 5. That's 24 days away,
Stick a fork in it, it's done. Where was that announced? That's good news! There was a picture of it being readied for the show sometime in the past month or so. They did not say it would be functioning or that it was related to them ready to ship...just that they would have it at the show (like they had models of the speakers and gen3 amps and Emersa last year). Mark |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Dec 14, 2016 7:40:03 GMT -5
Keep all this crap out of the RMC-1. That's why we want separates, so we can add the latest greatest DACs and other things when and if we want to. Stuart of Meridian has for quite some time been trying to develop some patented digital technology and get it ingrained into the industry so that Meridian can bathe in licensing fees. Competition will arise and this will turn into a mess. Meridian won't bathe in MQA licensing fees because MQA is completely being kept separate from Meridian as a company. That being said, the MQA decoder does not require any hardware, albeit it normally operates in the context of paired DACs, and, ideally, it should have direct access to the modulator of the DAC so now would be the time to keep a right open mind about the future development of superior DAC fidelity advancing technologies, which does appear to be what MQA is also convincingly about, rather than merely trying to diss it under the common denominator of "just another usual money grabbing bag". |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Dec 15, 2016 0:18:15 GMT -5
So neglecting my long-standing wish for direct digital audio streaming into the RMC-1 over Ethernet, which of the RMC-1's digital audio inputs will be the best to pipe stuff in over? One of the Optical or Coaxial S/PDIFs? Or perhaps the back-panel USB? On the XMC-1, I think the only input that will handle DSD natively is HDMI and then only DSDx1[1]. If the USB works well, a reasonable solution might be to put together a Raspberry Pi Roon Endpoint and hide it behind the RMC-1 ... On the other hand, if HDMI is required for DSD as with the XMC-1, I'll need an Raspberry Pi HDMI "Hat" (Daughter Card) ... And the same goes for S/PDIF ... Casey [1] I tried to work my way through the Data Sheet of the Burr-Brown 24/192 DSD1796 DAC[2] used in the XMC-1 to see what DSD support it offers. It never clearly states which set of DSD sampling frequencies it supports, but at one point it seems to indicate that it runs from 2.8224MHz to 11.2896MHz which would be DSDx1 to DSDx4 (AKA DSD64 to DSD256). The various AKM DACs[3] offer maximum DSD rates from DSDx1 to DSDx2 (AKA DSD128), and all the way up to DSDx8 (AKA DSD512) with the newest "flagship" AK4497. [2] Data Sheet of the Burr-Brown 24/192 DSD1796 DAC www.ti.com/product/DSD1796[3] AKM DACs: www.akm.com/akm/en/product/detail/0054/ |
|
|
|
Post by rhale64 on Dec 15, 2016 8:54:50 GMT -5
Keep all this crap out of the RMC-1. That's why we want separates, so we can add the latest greatest DACs and other things when and if we want to. Stuart of Meridian has for quite some time been trying to develop some patented digital technology and get it ingrained into the industry so that Meridian can bathe in licensing fees. Competition will arise and this will turn into a mess. Meridian won't bathe in MQA licensing fees because MQA is completely being kept separate from Meridian as a company. That being said, the MQA decoder does not require any hardware, albeit it normally operates in the context of paired DACs, and, ideally, it should have direct access to the modulator of the DAC so now would be the time to keep a right open mind about the future development of superior DAC fidelity advancing technologies, which does appear to be what MQA is also convincingly about, rather than merely trying to diss it under the common denominator of "just another usual money grabbing bag". I agree with all you have said here. |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Dec 15, 2016 9:32:56 GMT -5
Sorry about the crudity in my post, it degrades what I am trying to impart. MQA is a recording/source and streaming/broadband saving architecture. It does not belong in an A/V prepro, it belongs in source products such as Media Servers, and perhaps stand alone DACS. Lets keep separates, well, separate. Way back, well before Yves suggested it above, I mentioned that I would even welcome a digital out A/V prepro, with separate add ons for room equalization in the digital mode and then followed by separate DACS or or separately enclosed multiple channel DACs. MSB came close to doing something like this ten years or so ago. Stuart is a brilliant engineer, and he has contributed much to the audio video industry boards that he sits on and advises. MQA is an extension of his interests in encoding and packaging of information for a number of years now (MLP or Meridian Lossless Packing). He is truly a pioneer. I think, however, that he would like to have a licensing product such as Dolby or DTS, and really who can blame him for that, especially when it advances the quality of sound. People like Dan Laufman however may cringe at more and more licensing royalties.
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Dec 17, 2016 14:41:59 GMT -5
19 days to CES 2017 ... Less than three Weeks!!! Looking forward to the announcement ... (And yeah, I know, availability I'm sure will be quite a bit later, but it'll be nice to have a concrete set of specifications like which AKM DAC is being used, etc.)
Casey
|
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Dec 17, 2016 16:23:57 GMT -5
So neglecting my long-standing wish for direct digital audio streaming into the RMC-1 over Ethernet, which of the RMC-1's digital audio inputs will be the best to pipe stuff in over? One of the Optical or Coaxial S/PDIFs? Or perhaps the back-panel USB? On the XMC-1, I think the only input that will handle DSD natively is HDMI and then only DSDx1[1]. If the USB works well, a reasonable solution might be to put together a Raspberry Pi Roon Endpoint and hide it behind the RMC-1 ... On the other hand, if HDMI is required for DSD as with the XMC-1, I'll need an Raspberry Pi HDMI "Hat" (Daughter Card) ... And the same goes for S/PDIF ... Casey [1] I tried to work my way through the Data Sheet of the Burr-Brown 24/192 DSD1796 DAC[2] used in the XMC-1 to see what DSD support it offers. It never clearly states which set of DSD sampling frequencies it supports, but at one point it seems to indicate that it runs from 2.8224MHz to 11.2896MHz which would be DSDx1 to DSDx4 (AKA DSD64 to DSD256). The various AKM DACs[3] offer maximum DSD rates from DSDx1 to DSDx2 (AKA DSD128), and all the way up to DSDx8 (AKA DSD512) with the newest "flagship" AK4497. [2] Data Sheet of the Burr-Brown 24/192 DSD1796 DAC www.ti.com/product/DSD1796[3] AKM DACs: www.akm.com/akm/en/product/detail/0054/Leedom, If, as I suspect, the RMC-1 will accept native DSD over USB, would that work for you? |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Dec 17, 2016 17:30:44 GMT -5
It would probably work (as long as it's USB3.0 since USB2.0 is just barely adequate for high-bandwidth audio), but it's not really clear that Emotiva has any real interest in DSD and I can't really blame them since it a "solution in search of a problem".
My only real impetus for DSD is that I and a few friends have merged all of our CD collections in a Lossless FLAC collection. One of my friends has been contributing lots of High-Resolution Audio files. This was fine when he stuck to PCM 192kHz/24bit and lower, but he got onto the DSD Bandwagon in a big way for a while (thankfully he's backed off and mostly sticks to 96kHz/24bit now). This means that we have a fair number of DSD tracks which I need to dynamically convert down to 96kHz/24bit (the limit of my aging Logitech Squeeze Box Touch).
And honestly, I just want to stream directly across Ethernet into the RMC-1. I don't really want the extra box and power cord/wart. And I definitely don't want to have to "figure out" some crazy Raspberry Pi/Linux/Roon/etc. solution — I spend enough time on that at work!
But I also get why Emotiva wouldn't be interested in spending scarce engineering resources on things like Roon which are so far merely "interesting" as opposed to "Industry Standards". So I'm accepting that I will probably have to figure something out and get my hands dirty. So, I'm just trying to determine what the best solution will be for getting my digital audio data into the RMC-1.
Casey
|
|
|
|
Post by audiosyndrome on Dec 17, 2016 18:10:25 GMT -5
My only real impetus for DSD is that I and a few friends have merged all of our CD collections in a Lossless FLAC collection. One of my friends has been contributing lots of High-Resolution Audio files. This was fine when he stuck to PCM 192kHz/24bit and lower, but he got onto the DSD Bandwagon in a big way for a while (thankfully he's backed off and mostly sticks to 96kHz/24bit now). This means that we have a fair number of DSD tracks which I need to dynamically convert down to 96kHz/24bit (the limit of my aging Logitech Squeeze Box Touch).e for getting my digital audio data into the RMC-1. Casey You realize this is a public forum where I believe most people buy the music they want to hear, not copy it from friends, etc. Russ |
|
