Emotiva RMC-1 processor

[KeithL]

Your first presumption is actually incorrect....

The number of objects which can be handled simultaneously is limited by the Atmos standard and by the ability of your processor to keep track of them.
Each speaker is being fed a single audio channel containing whatever the Atmos decoder has placed in it.
You may as well ask, in a stereo mix, how many voices or other objects you can mix into one channel, or pan back and forth at the same time.
(The limitation is more a matter of how many the human audience can keep track of and benefit from that a technical limitation.)

Think of Atmos objects like images projected on a wall.... they are fere to overlap or pass through each other....
The only real limit is how many projectors you have and when a complex image becomes a jumbled mess in the eyes of your observers.

May 25, 2018 14:44:42 GMT -5 lrobertson said:

I thought it was discussed that speaker limits will also limit the amount of objects able to be panned between speakers because speakers can only effectively pan so many before losing there effect so objects need to be spaced out between more speakers for more objects... yeah the 7.1.4 label thing does have me stumped as trinnov users said they lost wide support... So how the cinema compares to the ht version is very interesting to me. Like if it is really 7.1.4 is it still object based between all lower speakers like normal Atmos beds or are all individually pinned object speakers? And did they use a similar format for even your 40 speaker theater?... But that being said it really does sound like Atmos for home theater’s standards as Keith put it is here to stay. I’m not ready to jump on the assumption that we will see new 7.1.4 limits automatically placed on all media. I could see this as Atmos’s attempt to not lose business to DTS:X. For those movies that aren’t deemed necessary for the Atmos dedicated masterpiece which costs more and is more complicated to author. Like say if the target audience is more for kids in order to be more competitive with DTS:X they release a format that allows for 3d audio but much easier to author when in reality the studio or director wouldn’t care to go past that. I understand there is streaming formats talk too. I’d just like myself and everyone to speculate less until we actually see all the movies that should be a masterpiece Atmos come to us degraded. We probably just need to assume that if a movie comes to us in 7.1.4 Atmos then it could of just as easily been in DTS:X or 7 channel just because whoever made it that way didn’t see the point in dedicating time to making it sound as good. Marvel and Disney will sell tickets and media no matter the audio format. A movie trying to recreate reality as much as possible as it’s selling point whether it’s a war flick or not will probably be done to utilize the whole speaker layout and Atmos ability.

[KeithL]

The Atmos mastering software is actually quite intelligently designed to handle objects.
(I've never used it, but those who have say it's quite a pleasure to use... relatively speaking.)

When you set out to place an object, you are presented with what looks like a 3D wireframe image of a room.
You place your object, which looks like a big red beach ball.
You can then change the size of the object and move it around in 3D.

You can also program more complex things like paths.
So, for example, you might take an "object track" of a helicopter.
Set it to start as a small red ball down low in the left rear.
Then program it to move, in a straight line, from lower-back-left to upper-right-center.
Set the trip to take seven seconds.
And set your object to start out at size=1 and grow to size=5 during the transit.
Your helicopter will now move from down low in the back on the left to high on the front right - getting larger along the way.
(Think of it like panning, only in 3D, and with the size option included.)

This makes mastering quite pleasant - as long as your tracks were originally created with this use in mind.

However, if your starting point is a classic movie, and what you have is one track with "a bunch of helicopters zooming around" in "the overhead effects track"...
Then, in order to control each separately, you're going to have to separate them into individual tracks... which may be difficult or even impossible.

If you've ever worked with 2D images and 3D rendering....
Think about the work involved in turning a 2D photograph into a 3D model you can scale and rotate....

The true benefit of Atmos is that you DON'T have to worry about the specifics of the system it will be played back on....
As long as you do it right to begin with.

May 25, 2018 10:51:31 GMT -5 lrobertson said:

I feel like Keith was suggesting that movies not really intended to be Atmos will have less than ideal object sound engineering. I’ve never been to an Atmos theater as there aren’t any around where I live but has anyone experienced one of these so called 7.1.4 labeled movies in an Atmos cinema and know that the theater made use of Atmos as intended? If the cinema version had a perfect Atmos and the uhd has a undermined version then I’d still be a little worried going forward. If the studio is just implementing a poor Atmos in general then they just don’t have respect for the need to make a piece of art over creating another box office movie that will sell well regardless of sound. Like he said it requires time and dedication to engineer the object sounds as needed and frankly looking at the movies like Star Wars and marvels that are geared towards young people the demand for works of art are probably less and corners might be cut by the studios and/or directors. I’m going to side with Keith here and expect the movies that are worth buying for me are naturally going to be the movies that take the time for real Atmos. The ones that might pin their objects to cut corners are the ones I’d probably rent anyways and would never considering watching it twice. It is disappointing but to expect perfect sound mixes on all types of movies doesn’t sound practical either. As far as moving past 7.1.4 with a 7 bed channel layout it still being misrepresented by some as not intended. The bed channels are meant to be in speaker arrays. It’s not a drawback of expanding. It’s based off of psychoacoustic principals to create diffuse soundstages. The more speakers playing the same material across an array the better. As long as there are no pinned objects then expanding past 7.1.4 is the job of the sound engineer to implement the right object code and to maintain the correct type of diffuse material in the bed channels. A bad 24.1.10 movie Atmos implementation would be nothing more than a bad sound engineer or obvious corner cutting for costs. Until we see a Saving Private Ryan type of movie released with pinned objects in a 7.1.4 format we should really drop the issue of no demand for 9.1.6+ because you’d be placing more importance for the kids movies over the masterpieces for all people. No point in acting like there is no point for the 24.1.10 systems till we all see it for the movies that count for people who would put that kind of money towards those systems. Something tells me marvel and Disney isn’t their target media.

[cwt]

May 25, 2018 15:19:53 GMT -5 Casey Leedom said:

By the way, I assume that if one explicitly selects a Lossless 71 Dolby Soundtrack on a 5.1 system, that most Processors will simply direct the Rears to the Side Surrounds, right? I just picked up the new Matrix UHD Remaster and the AVS Forum Review say that the 7.1 Dolby Lossless Soundtrack is way better than the default Lossy 5.1 Soundtrack and all I have is a 5.1 system.

** NOTE: The default audio track is the lossy Dolby Digital 5.1 mix. Selection of the Dolby Atmos/TrueHD 7.1 channel track has to be done manually.**

Of course, I'm not sure what would happen if I tried to play that Dolby Atmos/TrueHD 7.1 channel track on my old DMC-1 ...

Casey

That's the difference between how truehd and dts hdma handles mixdowns Casey . Dolby uses a 2ch core and extensions dolby tech paper-

One channel extension technique is the method by which MLP Lossless, Dolby TrueHD, and MPEG-2 LII deliver compatible downmixes for soundtracks with expanded channels. In these codecs, a 7.1-channel soundtrack is first downmixed to create a 5.1 mix, which is supplemented by a two-channel extension (which we'll call extension B). The 5.1 mix is then further downmixed to a two-channel stereo mix, and another supplemental stream is created that carries the 3.1-channel extension A. So the 7.1-channel program is delivered in three separate components: a two- channel mix, the 3.1-channel extension A, and the two-channel extension B.

The total payload is still 7.1 channels, with preconfigured subsets to create two-, 5.1-, and 7.1-channel presentations. If a listener desires a stereo presentation, the decoder plays only the two-channel downmix, thereby minimizing DSP resources for the simplest hardware products a useful idea. If a listener selects a 5.1 presentation, the decoder reconstructs it from the two-channel downmix plus the 3.1-channel extension A substream by means of rematrixing. If a listener wants a 7.1 presentation, the decoder reconstructs it by rematrixing the reconstructed 5.1-channel program with the final two- channel extension B substream.

Dolby also has a separate lossy mix on the bd usually

Gives the Blu-ray content creator the ability to include a companion Dolby Digital (640 kbps) 5.1-channel theatrical mix on 7.1-channel Dolby TrueHD titles

while dts hdma has a core integrated into the lossless audio . So your DMC1;s dolby decoder wouldn't recognise the MLP algorithm of the lossless track and you would have to select the different mix lossy track .. at a slightly better dvd like rate of 640kbps ]usually 448kbps on most dvd's]

[Casey Leedom]

Darn. I was hoping that my old DMC-1 would just merge the rear and surround channels so I could listen to the higher quality sound track. Oh well. I hope the RMC-1 will be able to do this since I can't see being able to get rear speakers in for a real 7.1 system ...

Casey

[Gary Cook]

May 25, 2018 18:26:46 GMT -5 KeithL said:

HOWEVER, in addition to being part of the bed arrays, each of those speakers can also be addressed individually by the renderer at the same time.
In addition, each speaker may individually be addressed by the object renderer.

To me this is why an Atmos track played through a Atmos capable AVR/processor sounds better playing through a 5.1 system than the non Atmos track (Dolby True HD) played through the same system.

I've heard that the latest theatrical mastering software may support an additional two "height beds" - but the home system does not.

I see that as the 9 in for example 9.1.6. The height channels in my single test (refer previous post) indicates that the front height channels may well be "bed" in the Cinema version of the movie.

(And, being a rendered object, it doesn't exist in the bed channels.)

So far I have heard or rather not heard, anything in an Atmos track that isn't there in the Dolby True HD track using the same Atmos capable AVR/processor. It just comes from the non Atmos speakers. For example the sound of the high arrows in Wonder Woman emanate from the ceiling speakers in the Atmos track and from the side/rear speakers via the Dolby True HD track.

So if you have say, more than 7 bed speakers, say 9 for example, you would need a processor that recognized that. And you would need a disc labled 9.1.4 for it to be descrete, not derived. Correct.

That has also been my real world experience.

Cheers
Gary

[cwt]

May 26, 2018 17:56:07 GMT -5 Casey Leedom said:

Darn. I was hoping that my old DMC-1 would just merge the rear and surround channels so I could listen to the higher quality sound track. Oh well. I hope the RMC-1 will be able to do this since I can't see being able to get rear speakers in for a real 7.1 system ...

Casey

Rest assured the RMC1 has full lossless decoding Was interesting to see how 7.1 cinema soundtracks made the transition to 5.1 home cinemas back in the day ; note the caption 'channel mania" Channel insanity now perhaps

Channel-mania
While blue-laser home video formats may initially drive 7.1 surround, the proponents of this surround configuration also believe it will be a good fit with digital cinema. SMPTE’s DC28 digital cinema committee has produced a specification, SMPTE 428M, which outlines a total of 20 audio channels. Of those 20, seven are the current Surround EX 6.1-channel configuration, and 13 provide additional capabilities: four new channels drive speakers that expand upon existing surround arrays, providing more directional control to the back and sides of the theater. Two more flank the center speaker (and have been used before in SDDS and 70mm formats). The remaining seven channels drive totally new speaker locations: a wide pair at the front, four vertical channels for an added sense of height, and a second LFE channel (7.2, 10.2, etc.). The plethora of channels has spawned a new round of naming conventions: Lvh (left vertical height) and so on.

Also, SMPTE specified how to apply a standard power-preservation downmixing coefficient so that theaters presented with any of these new channels could properly and consistently downmix them to 5.1, and ensuring that any 7.1 program will play correctly in a 5.1 home system. (Every 7.1 mix carries a complete 5.1 version.)
Dolby and DTS essentially agree on the implementation of SMPTE 428M in processors for home theater and theatrical applications. “When the question of how 7.1 was to be defined in the HD DVD and Blu-ray formats came up, Dolby proposed that since these were movie formats, they should support the extension channels defined by DC-28, so the new blue formats both reference the SMPTE 428M,” states Roger Dressler, director of business development for Dolby’s consumer group. DTS’s DTS-HD algorithm uses digital delays to let the sound from any of the speakers reach the listening position at the same time they had in the mixing studio.

[Gary Cook]

May 27, 2018 5:40:44 GMT -5 cwt said:

Rest assured the RMC1 has full lossless decoding

If it's not there on the disc then there is nothing to loose. If it's 7.1.4 on the disc then that's all we are going to get losslessly. If we get more than 7.1.4 then it's extrapolated, it's just like DPL11z, with maybe a better algorithm. Nothing more than "Fake" 9.1.6 or whatever.

Cheers
Gary

[KeithL]

May 26, 2018 20:59:26 GMT -5 Gary Cook said:

(And, being a rendered object, it doesn't exist in the bed channels.)

So far I have heard or rather not heard, anything in an Atmos track that isn't there in the Dolby True HD track using the same Atmos capable AVR/processor. It just comes from the non Atmos speakers. For example the sound of the high arrows in Wonder Woman emanate from the ceiling speakers in the Atmos track and from the side/rear speakers via the Dolby True HD track.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[KeithL]

Spoiler: confusing information.

No; there won't be anything missing from the 7.1 version... or even the 5.1 version.
In the theatrical mix, as far as I know, the bed tracks and the objects tracks are simply that... separate tracks.
However, the way the information is put together on the home disc is rather more complicated... and is optimized for backward compatibility.

Here's the weird bit....
In the home mix, if you have a 7.1 channel setup, the bed channels and the objects are NOT rendered separately then mixed down
It's sort of the opposite....
All of the information STARTS OUT in 7.1 channels.... so a TrueHD system just plays it.
The Atmos metadata actually tells the Atmos decoder how to "pull objects out of those channels and treat them as objects".
(They start out mixed into the regular tracks... the Atmos decoder UNmixes them... then handles them as objects.)

If you have a bit of historical background in broadcast audio, then you know this isn't really all that weird.
In fact, it's pretty much how FM stereo works.
- FM stereo does NOT broadcast Left and Right channels
- it broadcasts a L+R channel and a L-R channel
- for mono you can just play the L+R channel with no additional processing
- or, for stereo, you can do the math to get L and R channels  [ L+R + (L-R) = L ; L+R - (L-R) = R ]

It's also the way Dolby TrueHD is encoded.
It starts with "The Core" - which is a LOSSY DOLBY DIGITAL track.
You then have an extra track which contains WHAT YOU NEED TO ADD TO THE CORE TRACK TO CORRECT IT FROM LOSSY TO PERFECT.
You essentially start with the Dolby Digital track and the Dolby TrueHD track...
Then you SUBTRACT the DD track from the TrueHD track...
And you end up with a DD track and a (TrueHD minus DD) track... which you send to your client.
Clients that can't handle TrueHD just read the DD part and ignore the other part (and you can just strip the extra part off and throw it away if you want to).

While it seems complicated, it's actually brilliant.....
A "plain old Dolby Digital system" just reads the Core and ignores the extra stuff.
A "Dolby TureHD system" starts with the Core, then uses the "correction data" to turn it back into the original TrueHD lossless signal stream.
(This is digital, folks... you actually can add a correction signal to a lossy signal and get back the exact original signal.)

[cwt]

May 27, 2018 19:03:44 GMT -5 Gary Cook said:

May 27, 2018 5:40:44 GMT -5 cwt said:

Rest assured the RMC1 has full lossless decoding

If it's not there on the disc then there is nothing to loose. If it's 7.1.4 on the disc then that's all we are going to get losslessly. If we get more than 7.1.4 then it's extrapolated, it's just like DPL11z, with maybe a better algorithm. Nothing more than "Fake" 9.1.6 or whatever.

Cheers
Gary

Exactly Gary ; just to re iterate I was referring to the mixdown of 7.1 to 5.1 in Casey's situation . Its quite clever how the dolby core though lossy can be transformed into lossless but use relatively low cpu horsepower to decode it [lossy that is] specifically . Maybe one reason why dts hdma came well after dd truehd ; dsp processing overheads and ce's using cheaper soc solutions..

[davidl81]

youtu.be/pjfoX6RgiK8

So this is interesting, Walter stating 7 days ago that the RMC-1 will begin production in May or June. Fingers crossed that he is telling the truth.

[deewan]

I'm sure the latest update he has is the RMC will be in production in May or June. The RMC very well may be in production by that time. HOWEVER, the lack of an update last week before the Memorial day weekend doesn't give me warm fuzzies production is only days or weeks away. I really thought we would get an update last week but it was radio silence. Disappointing, but in the big picture no big deal. Life goes on without the RMC-1. My Marantz AV-7704 is doing an OK job of filling the gap until the RMC is released, whenever that date might be.

[skiman1]

The XMC-1 is now back in stock. Can the RMC-1 be far behind?

[skiman1]

Duplicate

[Gary Cook]

Jun 26, 2018 17:15:31 GMT -5 skiman1 said:

The XMC-1 is now back in stock. Can the RMC-1 be far behind?

But no Atmos/DTS-X board

Cheers
Gary

[novisnick]

Jun 26, 2018 18:47:24 GMT -5 Gary Cook said:

Jun 26, 2018 17:15:31 GMT -5 skiman1 said:

The XMC-1 is now back in stock. Can the RMC-1 be far behind?

But no Atmos/DTS-X board

Cheers
Gary

[garbulky]

Jun 26, 2018 17:15:31 GMT -5 skiman1 said:

The XMC-1 is now back in stock. Can the RMC-1 be far behind?

I imagine it's .... coming soon!

[Casey Leedom]

To be honest, given the "fun" Emotiva is now having with the XMC-1 (Gen2) V3 HDMI board, I'd hold off rolling out too many more products based on that same board while they're shaking out the issues. Right now they have a nice dedicated cadre of Emotiva folks rapidly uncovering issues and the Emotiva Team is addressing the issues as fast as possible. It would be nice to have the Bug Report Rate drop significantly before they expand the base of folks too radically who will be reporting issues already discovered ... Essentially, it feels like we're in the BETA Phase of the V3 HDMI Board Firmware roll out ...

Casey

P.S. To all those who have been pushing Emotiva to release stuff sooner, this is a complex product and it'll need to go through several stages of release in order to become a widely useful and stable tool ...

[lrobertson]

I’d be happy to be a RMC beta tester. Take my money

[novisnick]

Jun 27, 2018 19:29:04 GMT -5 lrobertson said:

I’d be happy to be a RMC beta tester. Take my money

Me too!

[Gary Cook]

Jun 27, 2018 16:09:17 GMT -5 Casey Leedom said:

To be honest, given the "fun" Emotiva is now having with the XMC-1 (Gen2) V3 HDMI board, I'd hold off rolling out too many more products based on that same board while they're shaking out the issues. Right now they have a nice dedicated cadre of Emotiva folks rapidly uncovering issues and the Emotiva Team is addressing the issues as fast as possible. It would be nice to have the Bug Report Rate drop significantly before they expand the base of folks too radically who will be reporting issues already discovered ... Essentially, it feels like we're in the BETA Phase of the V3 HDMI Board Firmware roll out ...
Casey
P.S. To all those who have been pushing Emotiva to release stuff sooner, this is a complex product and it'll need to go through several stages of release in order to become a widely useful and stable tool ...

I do believe that the HDMI HDCP is a way bigger minefield than the Atmos and DTSX implementation. HDMI HDCP is nothing more than a standard that is so loose that the literally hundreds of implementations by a multitude of manufacturers all seem to differ in some small or even large way. Whereas Dolby has far tighter control over Atmos which it owns and licenses very tightly, similarly DTS with DTS-X. I would suspect (hope) that the implementation of an Atmos/DTS-X board and software is far less prone to interpretation than HDMI HDCP.

Plus the Atmos/DTS-X board is only one ended externally, it just receives and processes signals and then sends it on in analogue form to the pre amp (internal and under Emotiva direct control) and then power amp. Whereas HDMI HDCP has to satisfy both external senders and external receivers of digital data. Which surely must make the Atmos/DTS-X upgrade only half as hard at the very worst.

Maybe a question for Lonnie , on a scale of 1 to 10 where the HDMI HDCP board was/is a 10, what are you seeing as the difficulty level in the Atmos/DTS-X board?

Cheers
Gary