|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Aug 12, 2017 0:16:31 GMT -5
So, I've never been completely clear on the discount programs of the past. I purchased a UMC-200 in 2014 so I think I have a 25% discount?
Wasn't there a 40% discount for pre-pros at some point and will any of these discounts be in play for the RMC-1?
|
|
|
|
Post by bolle on Aug 12, 2017 1:48:57 GMT -5
Do you have a physical 40% discount certificate (which is one use only btw.)? If not, this isn´t relevant for you.
If you bought an UMC-200 while UFL was still active, you are an UFL member and therefore get 25% on every new processor (on the full / not reduced price actually).
|
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Aug 12, 2017 2:14:57 GMT -5
So, I've never been completely clear on the discount programs of the past. I purchased a UMC-200 in 2014 so I think I have a 25% discount? Wasn't there a 40% discount for pre-pros at some point and will any of these discounts be in play for the RMC-1? You should call or e-mail Emotiva to make sure you are an Upgrade for Life member. I always call, they are always so nice and helpful. UFL members recieve a 25% discount on a new retail priced processor. I think theres a 3 purchase limit at this price. I don't recall them changing that policy. 40% discount cards were used as incentives to purchase prepros in the beginning. Most are physical cards that must be rendered in order to receive the discount. As mentioned, they are for one time use per card. Some purchasers received a card held by Emotiva and it would be on record. I haven't a clue as to how many cards existed or still remain in the hands of buyers waiting for the day to use it or sell it. Hope this helps |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Aug 12, 2017 2:42:53 GMT -5
Do you have a physical 40% discount certificate (which is one use only btw.)? If not, this isn´t relevant for you. If you bought an UMC-200 while UFL was still active, you are an UFL member and therefore get 25% on every new processor (on the full / not reduced price actually). I do not have a physical card but now I remember that the UMC-200 did give me a 25% on pre/pros. Boy, an unused 40% off would sure take a dent out of the RMC-1's $5K price. |
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator 
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,861
|
Post by LCSeminole on Aug 12, 2017 9:46:19 GMT -5
Remeberm the HDR-10+ capability in the 2017 Samsung sets is for internal streaming apps ONLY. That means that there is no need for HDMI at all as long as there is ARC or other means to get the audio out to your AVR or SSP. Just an fyi, the latest firmware for the 2016 Samsung UHD TV's contained HDR10+ and it's also believed HDMI 2.0b capability. In an earlier firmware this year they received HLG as well. Since Samsung infamously doesn't release what's in their firmwares, it's up to the owners to obtain sources/files to verify possible feature upgrades. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Aug 23, 2017 18:57:31 GMT -5
www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdfThis was interesting. I thought there was a 32 channel limit for atmos at home but this guide states that there are up to 24 base channels and 10 overhead and it gives you designations for speakers when expanding beyond a 9 channel base layer. Worth a look. I sure hope the RMC is built with expandability. This suggests 24.1.10 to be fully supported if the equipment allows. In other words 24.x.10 with any increment of 2 for pairs of speakers or 1 for the rear center all the way down to 5.1 so long as the equipment is capable. When adding speaker pairs you can begin filling them in the front with 15 degree separation around the main listening position.
|
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Aug 24, 2017 18:43:03 GMT -5
Nothing??... This must rub the 7.1 purists the wrong way. Now the only people who can talk crap about others not listening to the original director's intent for sound are people with 34 speakers in a room not including subs haha.
|
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Aug 25, 2017 1:16:02 GMT -5
Nothing??... This must rub the 7.1 purists the wrong way. Now the only people who can talk crap about others not listening to the original director's intent for sound are people with 34 speakers in a room not including subs haha. I was waiting for the 1st comment about the pdf suggesting using dolby atmos enabled speakers due to room constraints to be honest .. If the ceiling cant fit them I have an aversion to reflective technology for object audio  |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Aug 25, 2017 9:09:51 GMT -5
That would definitely be less than ideal. From past readings it sounded like they wanted true overheads to point straight down and have wide dispersion. These made it sound like if you can get away with it have them point to the main lp especially if they don't have wide dispersion.
|
|
|
|
Post by jameswilkinson7777 on Aug 29, 2017 13:20:35 GMT -5
Remember there are no dumb question  ... I'm still a bit confused on the balanced only outputs. I have an older parasound that I'd like to use when the RMC comes out, will I still be able to do that with an adapter? I'm assuming I'd lose any benefit of being balanced if I do so... if so, would I be better off with the XMC 1, or waiting for the XMC 2? |
|
richb
Sensei
Oppo Beta Group - Audioholics Reviewer
Posts: 890
|
Post by richb on Aug 29, 2017 13:23:38 GMT -5
Remember there are no dumb question ... I'm still a bit confused on the balanced only outputs. I have an older parasound that I'd like to use when the RMC comes out, will I still be able to do that with an adapter? I'm assuming I'd lose any benefit of being balanced if I do so... if so, would I be better off with the XMC 1, or waiting for the XMC 2? Using adapters the RMC-1 is still a balanced unit so it will generate very little noise. You will lose common mode rejection between the RMC-1 and the amp. - Rich |
|
|
|
Post by jameswilkinson7777 on Aug 29, 2017 13:30:16 GMT -5
Remember there are no dumb question ... I'm still a bit confused on the balanced only outputs. I have an older parasound that I'd like to use when the RMC comes out, will I still be able to do that with an adapter? I'm assuming I'd lose any benefit of being balanced if I do so... if so, would I be better off with the XMC 1, or waiting for the XMC 2? Using adapters the RMC-1 is still a balanced unit so it will generate very little noise. You will lose common mode rejection between the RMC-1 and the amp. - Rich So even with the adapters the RMC would be the best route vs. either XMC (with specs so far provided)? |
|
|
|
Post by goozoo on Aug 29, 2017 14:39:21 GMT -5
www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdfThis was interesting. I thought there was a 32 channel limit for atmos at home but this guide states that there are up to 24 base channels and 10 overhead and it gives you designations for speakers when expanding beyond a 9 channel base layer. Worth a look. I sure hope the RMC is built with expandability. This suggests 24.1.10 to be fully supported if the equipment allows. In other words 24.x.10 with any increment of 2 for pairs of speakers or 1 for the rear center all the way down to 5.1 so long as the equipment is capable. When adding speaker pairs you can begin filling them in the front with 15 degree separation around the main listening position. What is important to keep in mind is the physical space that it would take to put in 32 speakers in most homes! Most higher end home installs top out at between 16-22 channels + subs; and that's having to utilize in-wall subs to get to the 22 number. Also remember that in the race to see how many channels people can pack into a processor or speakers they can stick in a room, what has been missed is that these channels simply don't have that much content in them from the soundtrack and are having to be ran hot just to create a more convincing effect. Once again a prime example of technology running way ahead of content; just look at 4K? It is amazing what can be accomplished with the right gear and minimal speaker configuration to create a cohesive and immersive sound stage, no matter the room. We won't know until the unit is released as to the final configuration, but this obsession with speaker count is simply overkill in most homes as they lack the physical space. Just think of how wide your font wall has to be to properly accommodate front wides without causing lobing, nulls, or interference with the center dialogue channel. Assuming that Dolby Vision, HLG, and HDMI 2.0b are incorporated, I think the RMC buyer will be set for a long time to come. |
|
richb
Sensei
Oppo Beta Group - Audioholics Reviewer
Posts: 890
|
Post by richb on Aug 29, 2017 14:57:58 GMT -5
Assuming that Dolby Vision, HLG, and HDMI 2.0b are incorporated, I think the RMC buyer will be set for a long time to come. I'd like to see eARC supported, even if the full HDMI 2.1 cannot be. eARC does not require HDMI-CEC and support TV based apps with lossless/ATMOS audio. Currently, the LG apps support DD+ but they work very well and a good source of HDR streaming content. - Rich |
|
richb
Sensei
Oppo Beta Group - Audioholics Reviewer
Posts: 890
|
Post by richb on Aug 29, 2017 14:59:46 GMT -5
Using adapters the RMC-1 is still a balanced unit so it will generate very little noise. You will lose common mode rejection between the RMC-1 and the amp. - Rich So even with the adapters the RMC would be the best route vs. either XMC (with specs so far provided)? I can't say. If you want the extra channels obviously the RMC-1 is the way to go. I'd like to see and XMC-2 that has the same performance (fully balanced) and less channels since I will not be installing additional speakers. - Rich |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Aug 29, 2017 15:27:15 GMT -5
I could be wrong but I've read into it as every single Atmos signal is in fact 24.1.10. It is then computed to your surround setup. I understand the potential for speakers every 15 degrees is overkill and 30 on the height but there is the defense that psychoacoustics require close spacing to recreate the part of the sound field that should sound diffuse. With the elimination of dipoles there should be a noticeable benefit that 99% of us won't have the privilege to hear. And due to object based coding these extra channels will never go unutilized. I don't see myself with a 24.1.10 setup but I wouldn't be against increasing the numbers so with both heights and base channels I could narrow the angles in front of us as that's where are hearing is most accurate.
|
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,861
|
Post by LCSeminole on Aug 29, 2017 17:01:36 GMT -5
Assuming that Dolby Vision, HLG, and HDMI 2.0b are incorporated, I think the RMC buyer will be set for a long time to come. I'd like to see eARC supported, even if the full HDMI 2.1 cannot be. eARC does not require HDMI-CEC and support TV based apps with lossless/ATMOS audio. Currently, the LG apps support DD+ but they work very well and a good source of HDR streaming content. - Rich Where did you get the information on eARC not requiring HDMI-CEC? Having read the HDMI 2.1 FAQ on the HDMI.org website, it states that eARC will depend on the manufacturers implementation. I'm a fan of the idea of an Audio Return Channel, and even more so of it passing the immersive audio bitstreams, but it has yet to work on a consistent basis, especially when mixing different manufacturer implementations. I've pretty much written it off. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Aug 29, 2017 17:08:55 GMT -5
You've got the right idea - sort of - but not exactly..... The Atmos recording includes both the normal surround "channels" - referred to as "bed channels" - plus what are normally referred to as "objects". Each object has its own channel, and each object has a specified size and position in space. So, for example, the sound of a helicopter flying overhead could be set as an object, and its position could be "15 degrees left of center and 25 degrees up", and it could be a "point object". (And, over the next three seconds, it could move linearly back, down, and to the left - and get bigger.) When that object is rendered, the decoder looks at the speakers you actually have, and "assigns" the object to the appropriate speakers so that it sounds like it's in the correct location. Atmos actually supports a maximum of 128 simultaneous objects (although there are limits in terms of total bandwidth). (So the Atmos signal is "up to 128 total channels - with "typical being 7.1.2 bed channels and 118 object channels"). The point is that there is no specific number of speakers that would be "correct" or match the number of objects - and there are no "standard object locations". The renderer assigns each object to one or more speakers (if it belongs between two speakers, or is big enough to "cover" the area covered by two or more speakers) as it needs to. However, as far as the decoder itself is concerned, there are standard recommended speaker configurations. (The original theory is that the speakers could be in almost any arbitrary location, but the actual products are somewhat more constrained.) I could be wrong but I've read into it as every single Atmos signal is in fact 24.1.10. It is then computed to your surround setup. I understand the potential for speakers every 15 degrees is overkill and 30 on the height but there is the defense that psychoacoustics require close spacing to recreate the part of the sound field that should sound diffuse. With the elimination of dipoles there should be a noticeable benefit that 99% of us won't have the privilege to hear. And due to object based coding these extra channels will never go unutilized. I don't see myself with a 24.1.10 setup but I wouldn't be against increasing the numbers so with both heights and base channels I could narrow the angles in front of us as that's where are hearing is most accurate. |
|
richb
Sensei
Oppo Beta Group - Audioholics Reviewer
Posts: 890
|
Post by richb on Aug 29, 2017 17:51:57 GMT -5
I'd like to see eARC supported, even if the full HDMI 2.1 cannot be. eARC does not require HDMI-CEC and support TV based apps with lossless/ATMOS audio. Currently, the LG apps support DD+ but they work very well and a good source of HDR streaming content. - Rich Where did you get the information on eARC not requiring HDMI-CEC? Having read the HDMI 2.1 FAQ on the HDMI.org website, it states that eARC will depend on the manufacturers implementation. I'm a fan of the idea of an Audio Return Channel, and even more so of it passing the immersive audio bitstreams, but it has yet to work on a consistent basis, especially when mixing different manufacturer implementations. I've pretty much written it off. I read that on one of the threads. The press release says this: I think that the auto-detect is different from HDMI-CEC, perhaps this is wishful thinking. - Rich |
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,861
|
Post by LCSeminole on Aug 29, 2017 18:01:56 GMT -5
Where did you get the information on eARC not requiring HDMI-CEC? Having read the HDMI 2.1 FAQ on the HDMI.org website, it states that eARC will depend on the manufacturers implementation. I'm a fan of the idea of an Audio Return Channel, and even more so of it passing the immersive audio bitstreams, but it has yet to work on a consistent basis, especially when mixing different manufacturer implementations. I've pretty much written it off. I read that on one of the threads. The press release says this: I think that the auto-detect is different from HDMI-CEC, perhaps this is wishful thinking. - Rich It would be nice if this works conceptually, time certainly will tell! |
|
...
