|
Post by davidl81 on Aug 2, 2018 15:34:34 GMT -5
If Emotiva is looking for notoriety as one of its objectives they may shoot for the RMC-1 asap even if the XMC-1 would debug the new system. They probably want to hit the scenes when it still draws a lot of attention. Even if it has bugs bad publicity is better than none so I could see an RMC-1 before anything else. I could actually see it going either way if running the XMC’s first only draws it out 1-2 months. Ultimately whatever gets their name out there in the most effective manner I think is what they will shoot for. Time is more critical than having a buggy system to start with I would think. I would disagree with that statement. The RMC-1 is Emotiva's most expensive piece of equipment to date. It is meant as a truly Hi-Fi Pre-Pro and it need to preform as such. If it comes out of the gate buggy (as in more buggy than a typical higher end pro-pro) it will do far more harm then good to Emotiva's reputation in the higher end community. At this point the unit is far behind schedule, there is no reason to rush it to production. Emotiva won't get any more credit for being 12 months behind production instead of 15 months behind, but they will get a lot of ill will if they release a Pre-Pro with an inordinate amount of bugs.
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Aug 2, 2018 15:49:57 GMT -5
That’s if by buggy you think they would be serious issues. It seems hdmi is a bigger leap than what is left to sort out and it sounds like that was dealt with quickly and efficiently. I would assume minor buggy and quick firmware support then the RMC-1 would be the way they’d aim. Total speculation on the fact that 9.1.6 seems to be making less and less of a stir as time goes. NAD has had issues as well from what I read and basically it seems to me people stick with you through the small stuff if it sounds good and you’re quick to fix. Plus Emotiva does already have a reputation for a little bugs so unless their focus is more on future processors people will already go into the RMC with that in mind.
|
|
|
Post by davidl81 on Aug 2, 2018 16:01:46 GMT -5
That’s if by buggy you think they would be serious issues. It seems hdmi is a bigger leap than what is left to sort out and it sounds like that was dealt with quickly and efficiently. I would assume minor buggy and quick firmware support then the RMC-1 would be the way they’d aim. Total speculation on the fact that 9.1.6 seems to be making less and less of a stir as time goes. NAD has had issues as well from what I read and basically it seems to me people stick with you through the small stuff if it sounds good and you’re quick to fix. Plus Emotiva does already have a reputation for a little bugs so unless their focus is more on future processors people will already go into the RMC with that in mind. I think that as long as it is in the range of bugs the NAD model has that would be acceptable. The HDMI board is getting pretty timely updates from Emotiva and I would think that once they get the majority of those ironed out they would feel good about releasing the RMC (of course this depends on how soon the rest of the RMC is coming along).
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Aug 2, 2018 16:21:54 GMT -5
Agreed. And that’s my non-educated guess from a buyer prospective. I think the price and feature set is right and the timing as of right now for people to not demand a perfect product hitting the market to hit that 9.1.6 mark and know things are being dealt with with good customer service. You could very well be right though. I sure wouldn’t bet on it one way or the other. Then again tbh I’ve been with Emotiva long enough to not have to worry about the full 5k pricetag so I may insist a fair amount of reliability if I were to shell over the full price.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Aug 2, 2018 19:01:34 GMT -5
IMHO 9.1.6 is a dead format, I have come to that for the following reasons; Atmos/DTSX is currently a niche market and may not ever get past that due to market demands The mainstream hardware manufacturers are obviously viewing 7.1.4 as the top level target, their product range reflects that The market for processors/receivers over 7.1.4 is limited and highly priced which equals a niche market within a niche market Atmos is built over Dolby True HD which is 7.1 DTS-X is built over DTS HDMA which is 7.1 The majority of the Atmos/DTS-X movies that I have are 7.1.4, I don't have any 9.1.6 movies (that just may be more a reflection of my tastes in movies that I want to own as distinct from movies that I want to watch once). Dolby has provide specific Atmos mastering software for pinning to 7.1.4 which is used by a number of movie studios Dolby has also provided mastering software for streaming Atmos which is built over Dolby Digital 5.1 (for bandwidth reasons). DTS-X is 7.1.4
In summary my view is that 9.1.6 is niche market within a niche market, Dolby and DTS-X are focusing on 7.1.4, the movie studios are releasing most mainstream titles in 7.1.4, and the nail in the coffin Atmos streaming is almost certainly 5.1.4 due to variable bandwidth limitations worldwide.
Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Aug 2, 2018 19:01:55 GMT -5
It amazes me how many people here are computer geeks who not only expect tons of bugs, but they actually seem to like the process of helping to fix them. Like they are having more fun than if it had zero bugs. At the least, so many people anymore just putup with bugs.
Well that ain't me. I hate bugs and the fact is they really shouldn't exist. Yeah I know all the tech and discusssions why etc, but to just accept bugs as normal and live with it ain't ever gonna happen with me. I still hate how much I have to do a reset on my DirecTV Genie and its only once every 6 months or so. I'm not gonna lie or sugar coat it, some part of the reasoning why I bought the 8802a was I knew I wouldn't have to deal with bugs like buying a boutique brand. And Im not just talking Emotiva. From what I read, the Anthem AV60 had a lot of issues for about 6 months. Of course there are always odd ball things with the big brands, but its more likly they completely fail than have bugs. And if they do have bugs, its a faster fix. So yeah, I will say this out loud. I'm more than willing to take a 1% hit on sound quality if it gets me to zero bugs. On thread topic, that's why even if I do decide to give the RMC a try, it most certainly won't be until I read that ALL the bugs are ironed out. Just me I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Aug 2, 2018 19:15:00 GMT -5
IMHO 9.1.6 is a dead format, I have come to that for the following reasons; Atmos/DTSX is currently a niche market and may not ever get past that due to market demands The mainstream hardware manufacturers are obviously viewing 7.1.4 as the top level target, their product range reflects that The market for processors/receivers over 7.1.4 is limited and highly priced which equals a niche market within a niche market Atmos is built over Dolby True HD which is 7.1 DTS-X is built over DTS HDMA which is 7.1 The majority of the Atmos/DTS-X movies that I have are 7.1.4, I don't have any 9.1.6 movies (that just may be more a reflection of my tastes in movies that I want to own as distinct from movies that I want to watch once). Dolby has provide specific Atmos mastering software for pinning to 7.1.4 which is used by a number of movie studios Dolby has also provided mastering software for streaming Atmos which is built over Dolby Digital 5.1 (for bandwidth reasons). DTS-X is 7.1.4 In summary my view is that 9.1.6 is niche market within a niche market, Dolby and DTS-X are focusing on 7.1.4, the movie studios are releasing most mainstream titles in 7.1.4, and the nail in the coffin Atmos streaming is almost certainly 5.1.4 due to variable bandwidth limitations worldwide. Cheers Gary I have to say Gary, I'm starting to believe you. Once we learned of the "pinning" thing, I think it said a lot. Not the final straw for sure, but certainly a 6" gash in the forearm. For me personally, I figured 9.1.6 would be the final game ender. All else would be purely specialty market stuff. Now I'm not so sure. I can do the .6. Even bought the 6 speakers. I will never do the 9 thing. My room has a door right there on one side and a window on the other, so not happening. Good news if it locks on the .4, it may many many years before having to buy another processor. I just wish we knew more. If I install the 6 now, the center 2 may never get used and I'll have $400 in the ceiling that never does anything. If I knew more now, I could just install 4 and use the other 2 somewhere else in the house. I'm just sitting on a fence watching the hot babes walk by with no touchy feely. Frustrating
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Aug 2, 2018 19:33:29 GMT -5
Yeah true. I’m still hoping the mentioned newer version of DSU will have a way to extrapolate 24.1.10 from all material even the 7.1.4 in a desirable fashion. Or even a proprietary Emo solution. With all the mergers and Disney buying so many companies I could see pinned 7.1.4 being an issue if Dolby doesn’t step in or supply a revamped DSU. As of now I’m still under the assumption 9.1.6 and above is always in the future even if we have to rely on the modularity for the next format to take more advantage of it. I’ll still bet that there will be a solution for those of us that choose not to be purists and up convert or else Lonnie and Keith wouldn’t have suggested it would be a non issue. I’m also assuming no change in the avsforum community consensus that the 7.1.4 mixes are sub par to begin with so artistic purity standards are nil. Hard to say myself considering I’m stuck in 7.2 world for the time being.
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Aug 2, 2018 19:44:15 GMT -5
Wait. I thought Atmos had all of the "Objects" pre-rendered into the 7.1 Bed channels and what an Atmos Processor would do is subtract those Objects back out and then render them into the available speakers (2, 4, or 6 height), and 2, 4, 6, or 8 horizontal). As far as I understood it, there is no such format as 9.1.6.
Casey
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Aug 2, 2018 20:00:45 GMT -5
Wait. I thought Atmos had all of the "Objects" pre-rendered into the 7.1 Bed channels and what an Atmos Processor would do is subtract those Objects back out and then render them into the available speakers (2, 4, or 6 height), and 2, 4, 6, or 8 horizontal). As far as I understood it, there is no such format as 9.1.6. Casey That's the way it was supposed to be. But it would appear Dolby has come up with another option, probably at the request of the major studios, to have the option to "pin" the .4 height channels, thus making it more like a 7.1.4 "format," regardless of how it's supposed to work. Disney seems to be a major culprit. The questioning nature in me says its so they can release everything twice. Today we get Atmos 7.1.4. 3 years from now we get Atmos FULL, or some other B.S. like that. Would that not be total Disney?
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Aug 2, 2018 21:02:21 GMT -5
I’m also assuming no change in the avsforum community consensus that the 7.1.4 mixes are sub par to begin with so artistic purity standards are nil. To me that's an extreme generalisation, there are some great 7.1.4 sound tracks out there, just as there as are some terrible 23.1.12 mixes. There is far more in the quality of the mix than there is in the format it's delivered in. For some movies (perhaps many movies) Atmos is a waste of time, the movie content just doesn't do it justice. It's there but it's who cares it adds nothing. If the movie reviewed was simply not an "Atmos type of movie" and/or it had low quality sound engineering and mixing it wouldn't matter if it was 5.1.2 or 23.1.12, it would still review badly. I've watched/listened to over 30 Atmos and DTS-X movies (FWIW I prefer DTS-X) through various configurations of 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.4, 7.1.6, 9.1.6 and 11.1.6. Plus a number of the same movies in a commercial review theatre with a Storm processor 23.1.12 system and the quality of the sound engineering and mix makes far more difference than the system it is played via. Take the Dunkirk sound track in DTS HDMA, it walks all over 75% of the Atmos sound tracks that I have heard. Why? Because of the superb quality of the sound engineering and mixing. It's not remotely close to "sub par" and it's not even 7.1.4, it's not Atmos at all. Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Aug 2, 2018 21:21:41 GMT -5
Wait. I thought Atmos had all of the "Objects" pre-rendered into the 7.1 Bed channels and what an Atmos Processor would do is subtract those Objects back out and then render them into the available speakers (2, 4, or 6 height), and 2, 4, 6, or 8 horizontal). As far as I understood it, there is no such format as 9.1.6. Casey Hi Casey, substitute "format" for "choice of set up", ie; IMHO 9.1.6 is a dead choice of set up. What you are describing is "cinema Atmos" when what we get on blu rays or streamed is "HT Atmos". The rendering software and hardware (that the sound mixers use) is different between"cinema Atmos" and "HT Atmos". They are not interchangeable, that's the way it has been since Atmos day 1. In addition, around 2 years ago Dolby released "HT Atmos" software that facilitated pinning to 7.1.4. Disney (and its subsidiaries) appear to be requiring their sound mixers to pin to 7.1.4. I know one and that's what he is contracted to do. Dolby also has released a version of Atmos ("streaming Atmos") rendering software that is based on Dolby Digital (ie; 5.1) to enable streaming over narrower bandwidths. So any set up that is 9.1.6 is most likely to be receiving either 7.1.4 (disks) or 5.1.4 (streamed) content and then matrixing, extrapolating, post processing or whatever we want to call it any and all additional channels, speakers, arrays or objects in excess of that. Regardless of how it gets there, even if the systems is set up as 9.1.6, it ain't Atmos 9.1.6. FWIW, I have seen one disk with 9.1.6 on it, so maybe it is a recognised format Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Aug 2, 2018 22:16:20 GMT -5
I assumed there are some that sneak through but I was just speaking of avsforum talk and the fact that if there is going to be corners cut it also makes sense it would be from the studios that are literally cutting corners with pinning objects. On the other hand bad jobs can be done to full Atmos but when it comes to full blown artistry and people who want to develop masterpieces I feel naturally they will apply all of what Atmos offers and if they are working for a limiting studio they will do the best they can with how much resources they’re given. Don’t get me wrong I don’t know if the cinematic Atmos is great and somehow the conversion to pinned audio destroys its dynamics etc. I just know that many on AVS seem to think it’s lacking. Sorry for the heat say. Wish I had my personal $.02. I totally agree though about the source not needing to be 24.1.10 real Atmos. It just has been implied that for some reason the studios that have poor quality 7.1.4 pinned audio are also the ones that chose to limit the Atmos. So maybe it just comes down to resources and production value. Not saying a good sound engineer can’t maximize his or her resources and make a nice mix. And I’m curious how I don’t own any 7.1.4 pinned Atmos but all of mine are full fledged 24.1.10 so just fine at 9.1.6 if I ever get the RMC-1. I honestly think it’s right now what movies we choose to watch. Be it Disney or John Wick. I’ll worry when Disney buys up fox and continues to convert my type of movies to pinned audio. Until then 9.1.6+ isn’t a dead format. That’s implying everyone wants to set up their systems for Disney movies or solely stream. And on top of all that it’s practically been promised that even those mixes currently limited to 7.1.4 won’t be in the future with upgrades coming. I would bet a lot that 9.1.6+ is never going away. You’re really thinking of paying a lot of money for an RMC-1 and limiting it to 7.1.4 even if as it’s said it will fully support 9.1.6 with all material. We’ll see if they deliver.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Aug 3, 2018 0:19:24 GMT -5
And I’m curious how I don’t own any 7.1.4 pinned Atmos but all of mine are full fledged 24.1.10 so just fine at 9.1.6 if I ever get the RMC-1. Just for clarification, I have never seen/heard 24.1.10 on a blu ray disk, I'm not even sure all the metadata would fit. I have one day's experience with a Storn processor feed by a cinema release hard drive that would play at whatever set up we threw at it. But the exact same movies (2 of them) on disk were 7.1.4 (unless we turned on the matrixing, upmixing, extrapolation in the processor). Worth also keeping mind that not all pinned 7.1.4 disks are labelled "Dolby Atmos 7.1.4" there are quite few that are simply labelled "Dolby Atmos" but they only play at 7.1.4. Based on my sample size (30 + movies), early on in the 7.1.4 pinning they weren't labelled but more recently they all seem to be. Also for clarification, mixing Atmos for a cinema uses Dolby supplied computer software and Dolby supplied computer hardware. For mixing Atmos for home theatre Dolby supplies different software but it is possible to use any computer appropriately spec'd. The cost is of course substantially different. As a result it's not possible to take the cinema mix and then remix it for home theatre. They can start from the same master, but the processing after that is completely different, both software and hardware. Obviously the 7.1.4 pinning software is only related to the home theatre processing. It takes some detective work to split the Dolby spin for cinema Atmos from the Dolby spin for home theatre Atmos. In a lot of the white paper blurb it is difficult at times to tell which Dolby is referring to. I don't believe that this is an accident, it's Dolby attempt at promoting Atmos as being superior to DTS-X (the software for which DTS don't charge BTW). One stand out is that DTS-X has always been 7.1.4, so it benefits Dolby to not mention their 7.1.4 pinning. Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Aug 3, 2018 5:14:59 GMT -5
Hhmmm, I wonder if this kind of information is something that the RMC-1 could display for us? In my experience, Disc Packaging is fairly random with respect to what it says about the formats contained on the Disc.
Casey
|
|
|
Post by lonert on Aug 3, 2018 7:08:51 GMT -5
I have friends at Apple who battle HDMI issues on a daily basis and complain constantly about the fragile state of the HDMI "Standard" and compliance to that. This is OT, but Apple is partly responsible for this self-inflicted mess. You do realize that $1T Apple also has the dubious distinction of producing the most adapters (dongles) for their devices connecting to the outside world. If the whole world stays on an RJ45, it would be much simpler, but the progression of USB/USBc, Firewire (400/800), Thunderbolt (1/2/3), DisplayPort, Lightning (and more to come), HDMI are nasty and messy.
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Aug 3, 2018 7:30:47 GMT -5
And I’m curious how I don’t own any 7.1.4 pinned Atmos but all of mine are full fledged 24.1.10 so just fine at 9.1.6 if I ever get the RMC-1. Just for clarification, I have never seen/heard 24.1.10 on a blu ray disk, I'm not even sure all the metadata would fit. I have one day's experience with a Storn processor feed by a cinema release hard drive that would play at whatever set up we threw at it. But the exact same movies (2 of them) on disk were 7.1.4 (unless we turned on the matrixing, upmixing, extrapolation in the processor). Worth also keeping mind that not all pinned 7.1.4 disks are labelled "Dolby Atmos 7.1.4" there are quite few that are simply labelled "Dolby Atmos" but they only play at 7.1.4. Based on my sample size (30 + movies), early on in the 7.1.4 pinning they weren't labelled but more recently they all seem to be. Also for clarification, mixing Atmos for a cinema uses Dolby supplied computer software and Dolby supplied computer hardware. For mixing Atmos for home theatre Dolby supplies different software but it is possible to use any computer appropriately spec'd. The cost is of course substantially different. As a result it's not possible to take the cinema mix and then remix it for home theatre. They can start from the same master, but the processing after that is completely different, both software and hardware. Obviously the 7.1.4 pinning software is only related to the home theatre processing. It takes some detective work to split the Dolby spin for cinema Atmos from the Dolby spin for home theatre Atmos. In a lot of the white paper blurb it is difficult at times to tell which Dolby is referring to. I don't believe that this is an accident, it's Dolby attempt at promoting Atmos as being superior to DTS-X (the software for which DTS don't charge BTW). One stand out is that DTS-X has always been 7.1.4, so it benefits Dolby to not mention their 7.1.4 pinning. Cheers Gary I know you’re referring to the bed channel info because as long as objects are unpinned they are more or less assigned xyz which is scalable to the speaker arrangement whether 9.1.6 or 24.1.10. Bed channel info can be selected by the author and sometimes they separate even the front soundstage from the rear by leaving out the front wide channel area from what I read but yeah I understand your point even if you have 34 speakers that doesn’t mean they are all working hard. But I thought Keith was saying objects though maybe not as numerous in the ht mix still play rolls just in larger groupings of objects and what not to save on that metadata demand. As long as objects are technically though it should go up to 24.1.10 I thought.
|
|
|
Post by thrillcat on Aug 3, 2018 8:28:10 GMT -5
I assumed there are some that sneak through but I was just speaking of avsforum talk and the fact that if there is going to be corners cut it also makes sense it would be from the studios that are literally cutting corners with pinning objects. The person who does the mixing and the person who does the mastering are rarely the same people who do the final encoding.
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Aug 3, 2018 8:51:13 GMT -5
I assumed there are some that sneak through but I was just speaking of avsforum talk and the fact that if there is going to be corners cut it also makes sense it would be from the studios that are literally cutting corners with pinning objects. The person who does the mixing and the person who does the mastering are rarely the same people who do the final encoding. I’m not really trying to attack an individual it just sounds like there is a flawed process for going into the pinning. That makes more sense. I’m sure if there was one individual in charge of it start to finish it would be easier for that person to maintain their standards thinking of it all as their signature. I’d also assume even if that were the case they would be pushed to be as efficient as possible from a corporate standpoint which doesn’t always equate to a better product. Just like one corporation like Sony may have lesser standards for receivers than say Emotiva or Anthem and wouldn’t allow the overhead because Hifi quality just isn’t their market. I’m sure a lot of phenomenal projects could of been lost to the process if the artists were undercut and not allowed to fully capture what they would of wanted. But like Gary said there are probably a few that don’t seem to be lacking. It just raises red flags for me when AVS members are not astonished saying looks like another one that falls short on what they’d expect. I do believe there will always be a niche market for full 24.1.10 masterpieces so naturally if Disney or the likes doesn’t allow for the work flow necessary people like Martin Scorsese will find themselves behind companies that back their visions. And if the DSU is upgraded like it’s been suggested then the niche market won’t be as necessary to incentivize 9.1.6+ pre pros.
|
|
|
Post by deewan on Aug 3, 2018 8:54:29 GMT -5
It amazes me how many people here are computer geeks who not only expect tons of bugs, but they actually seem to like the process of helping to fix them. Like they are having more fun than if it had zero bugs. At the least, so many people anymore just putup with bugs. Well that ain't me. I hate bugs and the fact is they really shouldn't exist.... Yeah I know all the tech and discussions why etc, but to just accept bugs as normal and live with it ain't ever gonna happen with me.... Just me I guess. I agree it is amazing that some people love to troubleshoot, and some of the time I am one of those people. I also understand people who hate to troubleshoot and refuse to do it, some of the time I am like you. There are days I just want to watch a movie and enjoy the best picture and audio I can with a few button pushes. Those are the days I fall under your category. I don't want to determine work-arounds or buy extra equipment to get rid of audio issues or color mapping issues, etc. But then there are days I like a project and a challenge. I'll actively go into my room and try to find something to troubleshoot like why a particular SACD album in multi-channel mode does not output a single note from the left-surround channel, but the Blu-ray audio disc does. Is it the recording? My equipment? A setting in the equipment? sometimes it's fun. Long story to say, it's not just you would hates to troubleshoot and will give trade-offs to avoid it (and sometimes there are no trade-offs). We are all different and at certain times there are some of us crazies who love finding and troubleshooting issues.
|
|