|
|
Post by bolle on Sept 29, 2016 1:38:03 GMT -5
Any tendency if this will be built and if, when it will be available? In parallel to the EMP-1?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Sept 29, 2016 8:25:02 GMT -5
Will the XMC-1L have full balance stereo like the XMC-1?
|
|
|
|
Post by The History Kid on Sept 29, 2016 16:02:23 GMT -5
Feature request on the 1L if it's a go. I'd be willing to pay an extra few dollars to have USB and/or HDMI on the front. Many entry level AVR's even have front ported A/V and/or HDMI connections. I think even if you post this at $1099 it'd move well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Laufman on Oct 1, 2016 7:07:51 GMT -5
Hi Kids,
I appreciate everyones comments and participation!
Well, we've decided to hold on the XMC-1L for the moment. We would need a more enthusiastic response to this model to invest the resources.
I believe there is a place for a model similar to this, but we're going to take a look at this after the new Atmos/DTS-X platform is completed.
In the interim, you'll have the existing platform to enjoy and the new new MC-700 is right around the corner!
Thanks for your feedback!
Cheers,
Big Dan and the Engineering Wrecking Crew
|
|
|
|
Post by brubacca on Oct 1, 2016 7:42:52 GMT -5
Dan,
Thank you for letting us know. I really appreciate the update.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolle on Oct 1, 2016 8:00:26 GMT -5
Hi Dan, thank you for the feedback, really appreciated! Since you don´t mention the EMP-1, will this still be available at the beginnin of 2017? Also regarding the response, I think it is actually more positive than the numbers seem. Most of the "no" voters also told that they currently own an XMC-1. Would you buy a Porsche Boxster if you already have a 911 Cabrio? Perhaps for your wife... So I personally think that the market response would look a little bit different. The pricepoint of the "L" is much more attractive for many people, including me. Then many rooms simply don´t have the height to integrate Atmos / Auro etc. speakers. And the percentage of people not already having an XMC-1 is much smaller on the market than in this forum.  Best regards from Germany Fabian |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Oct 1, 2016 9:07:11 GMT -5
I agree wait on the atmos dts board to come out and implement them both. No point releasing an obsolete 1k processor.
|
|
|
|
Post by The History Kid on Oct 2, 2016 1:16:47 GMT -5
No worries there, I couldn't commit to purchasing yet anyway...
|
|
|
|
Post by onetallguy on Oct 2, 2016 14:36:44 GMT -5
Not interested. I am waiting for the atmos XMC to purchase the Pre.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardrc on Oct 4, 2016 20:34:12 GMT -5
I don't know if this has been answered, but with the LF and RF of the XMC-1 and I assume all outputs of the yet to be released XMR, the DAC outputs the differential signal. So hence fully differential and one output is not derrived from the analog inverse of the other. I don't fully understand the balanced thing in pre-amps and processors, I do understand its benefit in amps though. In my simplistic understanding the application is much the same in that it occurs in the analogue pre amp circuitry, not in the DAC. At some point, utilising differential circuitry, the analogue audio signal is split into 2 signals, being out of phase with each other. That split is maintained throughout the remainder of pre amp circuitry and passed to the balanced out connections (XLR) as two out of phase signals which then travel to the power amplifier. If the non balanced out (RCA) connections are used, there is circuitry to flip the phasing, then compare and eliminate any noise and then pass a single phase signal to the power amplifier. That eliminates any noise in the pre amp, but exposes the cables to the introduction of external noise. If we connect a differential pre amp to a differential power amp then any noise generated in the pre amp circuitry (post the signal splitting), any noise that sneaks into the XLR cables and any noise generated in the power amplifier are all eliminated prior to the output being passed to the speaker wiring. In my case I have a differential CD player (ERC-3), a differential pre amp (XSP-1) and a pair of differential power amps (XPA-1L's). I have used long interconnects (XLR) between the pre amp and the power amps which are located close by the speakers, hence very short speaker cables. As a result there is no noise introduced all the way from post the DAC in the CD player to the speakers, it's as close to dead silent as I can get it. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by wizardofoz on Oct 5, 2016 6:24:23 GMT -5
Would have to have full streaming over LAN and DSD support for me to ever even think about another processor
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2016 6:32:56 GMT -5
I agree wait on the atmos dts board to come out and implement them both. No point releasing an obsolete 1k processor. kind of ironic that if it doesnt have atmos THIS processor is obslete...but when I called the xmc-1 obsolete without atmos I was flamed hard...lol |
|
|
|
Post by meridion on Oct 8, 2016 4:43:21 GMT -5
I'm still wondering if there would be a market for a slim and inexpensive two channel (plus sub) pre-pro? I assume there are many people who have a 2 channel multimedia setup at home and who don't want to upgrade to 5, 7 or even more loudspeakers? atmos etc would not be needed in a two channel setup.
I would definitely buy a two channel pre-pro with HDMI switching, proper sound decoding (downmixing and room correction) from HDMI sources, usb-dac, internet radio (TuneIn/Radiotime integration, FM is being replaced by DAB+ in europe) and Spotify Connect.
Spotify Connect or internet radio functionality would be great for XMC-1, too!
- Michael
|
|
|
|
Post by petew on Oct 8, 2016 8:43:47 GMT -5
I'm still wondering if there would be a market for a slim and inexpensive two channel (plus sub) pre-pro? - Michael I doubt there would be much if any cost savings. The processor would have to decode DTS and DD, so you've already paid for the licensing. You'd still need DSP horsepower to downmix multichannel to 2.1. The additional cost of five more RCA jacks and a bit of analog circuitry couldn't be much. |
|
|
|
Post by Luddite111 on Oct 8, 2016 14:48:34 GMT -5
Can't believe how much of this thread is devoted to a dumb volume knob. Especially after the cost savings explanation. Isn't the purpose of this unit to be a stripped down XMC?
Maybe get rid of the xlr and build a cheaper remote and shave another few hundred off the price. Then I would definately buy.
I would probably choose this over Emersa - which I am waiting to be released so I can buy - simply for the modular hbmi. Although if it costs $350 + $50 shipping to upgrade to current standards every few years maybe its worthwhile to upgrade the entire unit? This is the primary reason I'm in the $1000 price range and very, very reluctant to buy the current XMC-1.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcisbig on Oct 8, 2016 14:59:16 GMT -5
Man, this XMC-1L ticks all the right boxes for me! Sure, I'd love to have a few of the changes mentioned by others (additional trigger out, input for Dirac Mic on the front) but on the whole, this thing looks awesome to me! I've got a UMC-200 now, and I like it a lot. I'd like to upgrade though to something that had:
1) Balanced Outputs
2) Dirac Capabilities
3) Sound quality on par or near the XMC-1 and DC-1
It sounds like the XMC-1L would have been perfect. Hopefully they pick up that project again soon!
|
|
nate
Minor Hero
Posts: 30 
|
Post by nate on Oct 9, 2016 14:43:33 GMT -5
As a prospective new preamp customer, it would be very appealing to have a option in the $1000-$1200 range given the significant gap between mc-700 @ $599 and XMC-1 gen3 @ $2499, which is otherwise being filled by mainstream prepros like Marantz and pioneer with street prices in the $1500 range. those options are light on sonics but do offer a lot of features. I'd much rather have the hypothetical XMC-1L made in USA. How long would it take to bring to market?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Oct 9, 2016 18:22:53 GMT -5
Hi Kids, I appreciate everyones comments and participation! Well, we've decided to hold on the XMC-1L for the moment. We would need a more enthusiastic response to this model to invest the resources. I believe there is a place for a model similar to this, but we're going to take a look at this after the new Atmos/DTS-X platform is completed. In the interim, you'll have the existing platform to enjoy and the new new MC-700 is right around the corner! Thanks for your feedback! Cheers, Big Dan and the Engineering Wrecking Crew Well Dan, you have set the expectations, with me anyway. An XMC-1L as you have described it plus Atmos/DTS-X support is precisely what I would buy. I'm in no hurry, the UMC-200 is working and sounding just fine. Just make sure it's available for the Emofest next year (yes another hint), so I can pick one up while I'm there. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by solidstate on Oct 16, 2016 1:25:16 GMT -5
Rotary encoders are more prone to failure than buttons of high quality. I have a first batch XMC-1 and I've never been happy with the "feel" of the volume knob as the plunger button function shaft makes it wobbly. Perhaps a screw needs tightening or something? hmm I should pull the front panel PCB out and check.
Most of the time volume is controlled via remote.
My vote goes for buttons in all cases despite price bracket.
The best UI for buttons is up, down, right, left, center button select/enter and two more buttons for forward and back.
I honestly don't understand why more is needed in a front panel UI less a soft off button.
|
|
|
|
Post by solidstate on Oct 16, 2016 1:36:13 GMT -5
One problem with this type of button UI is if all of the buttons are placed on one horizontal plane vs actually orientating them in accordance with their function. LCD computer monitor UI frustration comes to mind.
A capacitive rotary encoder with four button up/down/right/left gives the BEST OF BOTH WORLDS and does it with a more reliable device that can be practically flush with the front panel.
I think apple has some kinda design patent on that though dating back to the iPod.
|
|
