|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Jan 16, 2018 14:57:39 GMT -5
I don’t agree with Bonzo ’s contention that a ‘Flagship’ product should have every possible input, different companies have different Flagships. However, I do wish both the new XMC-1 and the RMC-1 did have traditional analog tape outs, it gives flexibility in how you record and where the ADC takes place. I currently use the tape outs on the XMC-1, and would like to continue to have that flexibility. But I see they’re gone, and I’ll figure out how to get by. Pardon the question, but what do you actually use the tape outs for? Cheers Gary My primary recordings are needle drops into VinylStudio on one of my Mac mini’s, I have connected my gear three different ways: 1. Turntable > XPS-1 > Mac mini 3.5 input : This method has the theoretical advantage of the shortest signal path, and that I can record albums while using my XMC-1 to watch a movie, listen to music, whatever. The disadvantage is that I have to replug cables to listen to an album through my system. This method has the technical distinction of remaining analog until hitting the Mac mini’s ADC. 2. Turntable > XPS-1 > XMC-1 (Analog 1) > Tape Out > Mac mini 3.5 input : This method allows me to do needle drops and listen to the turntable through my system (without changing cables). It has the theoretical disadvantage of adding the XMC-1’s line amp to the path, however I haven’t heard any audible difference with method 1. Also some of the gain needed to set recording levels is provided by the XMC-1. It shares with method 1 the use of the mini’s ADC. 3. Turntable > XPS-1 > XMC-1 (Analog 1) > TOSLink Out > Mac Mini TOSLink input : This method has the same advantages and disadvantages of method 2, though changing to method 1 requires another cable and connection change. It also has the technical distinction of using the XMC-1’s ADC and then sending a digital signal to the mini, this requires more gain during recording from the mini. I also (primarily) use method 2 for recording live music through my mixer and into the XMC-1’s balanced inputs. The considerations above are the same though I’m using GarageBand software instead of VinylStudio, and method 1 isn’t an option. If I choose to buy an XMC-1 G3 or an RMC-1, I must use method 3 as there will be no analog tape outputs; if I upgrade my XMC-1 G2 with HDMI/Atmos I retain the tape outs, but lose the Zone 2 analog outputs (requiring me to buy a new Zone amp with digital inputs). Now, one might argue that the XMC-1’s ADC is better than the mini’s and that method 3 is the best choice anyway, but my experience (mostly with levels) doesn’t bear that out; and what if tomorrow I get a new Mac or other recorder with a different/better ADC, without a tape out I have no option to take advantage of that. So I’d prefer to keep my recording options open. Does that answer your question? |
|
|
|
Post by goozoo on Jan 16, 2018 16:11:46 GMT -5
Alternate view, a $4499 Marantz processor + $500 for a Professional to REW it.  Or a $4499 Marantz processor with DIY REW + $500 of Jack Daniels to drink  Cheers Gary Alternate view: a $3000 XMC-1 Gen 2 with HDMI v3 board + Atmos Upgrade (when available) + Dirac Live + $500 for a Professional to REW it + $1500 of Jack Daniels to drink  Or a $3500 XMC-1 Gen 3 with Dirac Live (when available) + $500 for a Professional to REW it + $1000 of Jack Daniels to drink Children, children.....who needs pro calibration when DIRAC lets "anybody" dial in their room?! (Sarcasm) Alternative view: Buy some concert tickets and enjoy all the Jack Daniels and Bourbon you want. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Jan 17, 2018 17:23:27 GMT -5
Just gotta ask Bonzo, what are you recording and what are you recording it with and onto? Sorry, I started this thread last week, was involved in it, and then sort of fell off the earth. Been busy. Well years ago I did a lot of converting of my old cassette tapes from my youth to CD. When we were kids in the 80's we used to make all sorts of tapes from home recordings to mixes and goofy things. Even recorded my parents snoring one time. I spent a few years doing that and got about 80% done. Once in a while when I'm slow I still pull one out and burn it. I do the same with old home made VHS's too. It's great reminiscing. I also used to do a lot of mix CD's for myself and friends. About 6 of us would make a new CD once a year and mail it out to the rest of us. So I'd get a new CD about every 2 or 3 months full of music I've usually never heard. It was always a blast to make those CD's for them too. I still make some for myself to sort of keep a timeline record of what I'm listening to over the years, but the swapping is unfortunately mostly over. I miss it. When my turn table was working I used to do needle drops of my parents old albums and for friends. I've got more to go and a new turn table is on my list. Probably the most odd thing I do is burn audio only from the TV DVR of concert broadcasts like Axis TV, PBS, a few others, and sometimes even commercials I find amusing (a hold over from when I was a kid). Since I can do it in analog with my Pioneer, there isn't anything I can't make an audio copy of. Not only are there are a lot of video's that never get put out as official Blu-rays or DVD's, I also like to have the audio on CD so I can just listen to them easily when I want, like in the car or even on the main unit. And once on CD, I can easily make them digital again for my phone or other places. Same goes for concert Blu-rays and DVD's I own. You might be surprised how often they only put out video versions of these things. Video is great, but for many shows I'd like to have the audio too. So when a store bought CD isn't an option, I can just make one myself. Of course many will ask why not just do a lot of that on your computer etc, or do it some other way. Well first off let me say I'm no audio engineer (I wish I was), and I'm far from being an expert or professional. I've always just done it for fun on readily available consumer equipment. That being said, I do take it a bit more serious than the average Joe, and I've found there are some things that are easier or more fun to do one way rather than the other. Just for example, it's much more fun to make mixes on my stereo unit while drinking a beer with my wife or friends around. And there I can easily manually adjust volume levels (digitally or analog) on the fly when I want. I could go on about the attributes / advantages of why I like doing it that way, or talk about all the reasons using a computer is better for others, but that's a totally different topic. In the end I still like to make analog recordings. I do and will always think a line level analog RCA output should be considered a mandatory output on any switcher / pre-amp / processor. Stereo system 101. Any company saying it's too much of a cost issue or a waste of their time to have is totally full of schiit. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Jan 17, 2018 17:33:41 GMT -5
Why wouldn't all channels be driven at a time from a processor, it has no amps? I think its a processor limitation, but someone else with more knowledge will have to answer you. My 8802a has 15 physical outputs, but can only do 7.2.4. The extra 2 are for front height channels if memory serves. So I think it can also do 9.2.2, but I'm not 100% sure. It's been a bit since I looked it all up. I think the new 8805 may be similar, but not sure. I haven't read up on it yet. +1. Very true, for sure. The Marantz isn't perfect either, but at least it appears they've kept most of the useful stuff from the older model. I'm just disappointed to see Emotiva is going the other way in terms of input/output flexibility. Fact, not opinion. The old XMC-1 is closer to Nirvana than the new one for me. Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Jan 17, 2018 17:36:11 GMT -5
The Marantz could have all the legacy inputs you want and even more but still running Audyssey which in my opinion is hundreds of miles behind Dirac Live and the main reason I went from Marantz to Emotiva. The only way I would come back to Marantz/Denon is if they ditch that Audyssey crap in favor of Dirac Live or RoomPerfect. No doubt about it. If you want or need room correction, and you prefer Dirac of Audyssey, then Emotiva is a better way to go. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Jan 17, 2018 17:40:12 GMT -5
Since the unit already has six analog RCA ins, But it doesn't, it only has 4. EDIT Next Day: Oh wait, I see what you are saying. It has 6 actual plugs, which goes to your point below about if you made them completely assignable, that could amount to 6 of a 7.1 set up. Gotcha. Not a horrible idea actually. But I like your idea below even better. Yep. Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Jan 17, 2018 17:44:48 GMT -5
I would also expect any components that do have 7.1 in to be passthrough with no a/d d/a conversions [being quite rare] and subsequently no bass management or room eq . Wonderful No room EQ yes, but distance / volume compensation and bass management can and is most certainly done in players like an Oppo (an even my old Panny Blu-ray player). I don't currently use EQ. Yep, but that doeen't help the topic of THIS thread, which is the new XMC-1 Gen 3. It doesn't have expansion slots. |
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Jan 18, 2018 6:04:31 GMT -5
I would also expect any components that do have 7.1 in to be passthrough with no a/d d/a conversions [being quite rare] and subsequently no bass management or room eq . Wonderful No room EQ yes, but distance / volume compensation and bass management can and is most certainly done in players like an Oppo (an even my old Panny Blu-ray player). I don't currently use EQ. Many these days do use auto room eq Bonzo ; so unfortunately the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few who need analog connections.. Similarly with multi analog ins its one of the raison d"etre of these models to decode the new important atmos/dts-x codecs ; you cant do that with an oppo and multi analog so it goes by the wayboard . I do wonder if the bass management in the latest oppo's is 1/2 decent ie theres not just a global crossover for all speakers like the bdp83 ; or better ; individual crossovers for each speakers frequency response like a decent avr will do Yes that was just something to assuage the concerns of those who do want multiple analog inputs ; there is still hope mate Remember also this 1st appearance like many introductions is a CES mock up ; we don't know what engineering stage it is ; one things for sure ; the RMC1 has more comprehensive specs we know about .. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Jan 18, 2018 10:00:47 GMT -5
One more post regarding the 7.1 inputs just to prove without a doubt that I'm more crazy than any of you can even imagine......  What I'm working on (haven't gotten there yet due to holidays and other personal issues) is to use the 7.1 inputs on the Marantz in what I think is a very unique way. History: Anyone who's read my posts in the past knows I do actually occasionally use the surround effects (stadium / hall etc) that all other audiophiles appear to loath. I use them when listening to live CD's to make the shows sound as if I were there. [NOTE: I much prefer a good audience bootleg recording vs soundboard recording due to their "live as if you were there at the concert" feel.] For example, a few years ago I was fortunate to attend the String Cheese Incident at Red Rocks. When I got home, I purchased the CD's from their website. As usual, they were soundboard recordings. They were okay, but they certainly didn't convey to my wife what it was like actually being there. What I was able to do using my old Denon receiver was to turn on "stadium", crank up the volume, turn down the lights, turn my ceiling fan on high (to replicate the strong winds of the night I was there), and light some incense (to approximate the smell of burning mary jane since I no longer partake in such things). The effect was very admirable in recreating "the scene" of what it was like to actually be there at Red Rocks. Super fun!Since most modern quality processors don't contain the surround sound effect modes anymore, I'm going to try to be creative. The idea is to have both my old Denon and my Marantz in the system chain. If I run a source component CD to the Denon via Toslink, turn on the effect I want, and use the 7.1 output lines to connect to the Marantz, then I should be able to still have my effect abilities when I so desire. Volume settings are the one place I'm nervous about, but we'll see. But without the 7.1 inputs on the Marantz, I would be completely S.O.L. in accomplishing such a thing. |
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Jan 18, 2018 10:09:51 GMT -5
Loved “Cathedral” surround mode on my old Sunfire TG Processor.
One of the many reasons I reject the term audiophile,
I prefer enthusiast.
Bill
|
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Jan 18, 2018 14:41:54 GMT -5
Loved “Cathedral” surround mode on my old Sunfire TG Processor. One of the many reasons I reject the term audiophile, I prefer enthusiast. Nothing to be ashamed of. The vast majority of imaging is artificial yet people construct their systems to maximize this effect and enjoy them immensely. No reason you can't enjoy a similar artificial experience just as much. www.dagogo.com/how-important-is-soundstaging/ |
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Jan 18, 2018 15:17:41 GMT -5
Loved “Cathedral” surround mode on my old Sunfire TG Processor. One of the many reasons I reject the term audiophile, I prefer enthusiast. Nothing to be ashamed of. The vast majority of imaging is artificial yet people construct their systems to maximize this effect and enjoy them immensely. No reason you can't enjoy a similar artificial experience just as much. www.dagogo.com/how-important-is-soundstaging/Ashamed?! Poor choice of words to say the least. Even on a highly accurate sound system, poorly recorded source material that HAPPENS to be excellent music can benefit greatly by processor modes. I love lossless audio, but I also like throwing a life preserver to the other stuff also! Bill |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Jan 18, 2018 15:56:04 GMT -5
Nothing to be ashamed of. The vast majority of imaging is artificial yet people construct their systems to maximize this effect and enjoy them immensely. No reason you can't enjoy a similar artificial experience just as much. www.dagogo.com/how-important-is-soundstaging/Ashamed?! Poor choice of words to say the least. Even on a highly accurate sound system, poorly recorded source material that HAPPENS to be excellent music can benefit greatly by processor modes. I love lossless audio, but I also like throwing a life preserver to the other stuff also! Bill Perhaps poor wording if you are thinking literally, but I really don't think rbk123 meant anything personal by it. The fact is in the snobbery that is the audiophile world, those processor modes are mostly totally schiit upon, and so are the people who like to use them. It's like we have leprosy or something for wanting to hear some artificially gained effect. Like rbk123 said, "The vast majority of imaging is artificial" yet those same arrogant audiophiles lust after it like it's some sort of golden goddess. If someone made an artificial sound processor that "came up with precise imaging" from a flat mono recording, some audiophiles would change their tune in a heart beat (although others would still hold their nose up). It's this attitude that creates that "ashamed" wording. I wonder how many braggart audiophiles have sound effect mode processors hiding in their closets? Because there are, and they are ashamed of it. You and I don't fit that "Bill." |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Jan 18, 2018 16:11:06 GMT -5
Remember also this 1st appearance like many introductions is a CES mock up ; we don't know what engineering stage it is ; one things for sure . This could just be a "feeler" unit made up with last years old RMC-1 parts to get some public feedback on where it stands. If that's the case, then this thread is perfect place for people to voice their opinions. Here's my 2 cents plain and simple for this new XMC-1 Gen 3, in order of importance to me. Start with what it is now in this prototype, and then:
- Add back (1) RCA analog line level record output (I mean really, why are we even discussing this, how costly could it be?)
- Add back (1) set of RCA analog 7.1 inputs
- Add back (1) Zone 3 output
If more space is required to do this, remove 2 of the digital inputs (1 toslink and 1 RCA), or even 4 (2 toslink and 2 RCA) if absolutely necessary [assuming they are completeley assignable, which means there would still be at least 4 usable digital inputs].Of course it might not be that at all, which puts it back at square -2 for me. Oh well. |
|
richb
Sensei
Oppo Beta Group - Audioholics Reviewer
Posts: 890
Member is Online
|
Post by richb on Jan 18, 2018 16:52:18 GMT -5
Remember also this 1st appearance like many introductions is a CES mock up ; we don't know what engineering stage it is ; one things for sure . This could just be a "feeler" unit made up with last years old RMC-1 parts to get some public feedback on where it stands. If that's the case, then this thread is perfect place for people to voice their opinions. Here's my 2 cents plain and simple for this new XMC-1 Gen 3, in order of importance to me. Start with what it is now in this prototype, and then:
- Add back (1) RCA analog line level record output (I mean really, why are we even discussing this, how costly could it be?)
- Add back (1) set of RCA analog 7.1 inputs
- Add back (1) Zone 3 output
If more space is required to do this, remove 2 of the digital inputs (1 toslink and 1 RCA), or even 4 (2 toslink and 2 RCA) if absolutely necessary [assuming they are completeley assignable, which means there would still be at least 4 usable digital inputs].Of course it might not be that at all, which puts it back at square -2 for me. Oh well. The 7.1 analog inputs might be a big deal to implement because you either have to digitize (hardware per channel) or have it supported by the volume control directly. It depends on the design. From a real-estate point of view, a single connector with break-out cable works for me. - Rich |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jan 18, 2018 17:07:22 GMT -5
In regards to the analogue out, about 10 years ago I asked a movie sound mixer guy I know about converting my old analogue video and audio recordings to digital. I had a couple of VCR's that I was afraid would eventually die so I wanted to transfer the irreplaceable before they died. He suggested an inexpensive Behringer ADC / video digitiser (less than $100) which does all of the conversions and has a USB output for input into the computer. Over a few months I worked my way through all the VCR stuff, family videos, some racing videos in numerous cars that I have driven, presentations etc. I didn't bother transferring anything that I could buy in digital form. I have used it a few times since for audio only as it's simple to use, very effective, basically noiseless, easily transported and gives a very accurate result without any unnecessary electronics getting in the way. It's in a box of never used gear in the garage and has been untouched for years, until this conversation I'd forgotten all about rerecording analogue stuff. I really have nothing left to digitise and haven't had any gear that has had an analogue line out for decades. So one would be of no use to me and I suspect the vast majority of Emotiva customers.
Cheers
Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Jan 18, 2018 23:06:12 GMT -5
Perhaps poor wording if you are thinking literally, but I really don't think rbk123 meant anything personal by it. The fact is in the snobbery that is the audiophile world, those processor modes are mostly totally schiit upon, and so are the people who like to use them. It's like we have leprosy or something for wanting to hear some artificially gained effect. Like rbk123 said, "The vast majority of imaging is artificial" yet those same arrogant audiophiles lust after it like it's some sort of golden goddess. If someone made an artificial sound processor that "came up with precise imaging" from a flat mono recording, some audiophiles would change their tune in a heart beat (although others would still hold their nose up). It's this attitude that creates that "ashamed" wording. I wonder how many braggart audiophiles have sound effect mode processors hiding in their closets? Because there are, and they are ashamed of it. You and I don't fit that "Bill."  |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 19, 2018 15:23:30 GMT -5
Interesting article.... and it also raises a number of interesting points and points of view. For example....... Accepting that most of the "sound stage" on modern multi-track recordings is entirely fake - and springs from the mind of the recording engineer who made the mix...... Would you prefer your audio system to accurately reproduce what that engineer intended, or would you prefer it to do its own flavor of processing, and make a new (artificial) version that you might like better? My personal view there is that, if there is any natural sound stage, then I want it reproduced accurately.... And, if all we really have is a totally phony sound stage, made up by the recording engineer.... well, if he's a GOOD recording engineer, then I probably also want to hear what he intended as accurately as possible. And, if I'm a better recording engineer than he is, then I must be in the wrong line of work. Of course, it also depends a lot on the music itself........ To use a video example........ I wouldn't DREAM of colorizing a copy of The Maltese Falcon..... because it was filmed, and envisioned by the director, in black and white. It was INTENDED to be filmed in black and white; it looks right in black and white; and it doesn't look right in color; it screws up the whole mood of the thing. Likewise, Young Frankenstein was intended, from the ground up, to be seen in black and white (it was filmed in b&w long after color was available - deliberately for artistic effect). However, for my favorite Three Stooges episode, or lots of other movies that were filmed in black and white because it was just the current technology, colorizing can be rather pleasant. Even though I personally probably wouldn't bother one way or the other, so I wouldn't pay extra for it, I don't at all fault systems that offer the OPTION of some sort of processing to "improve" things.... As long as it isn't automatically applied to everything you play through them - and you have the option to disable it and NOT use it when it makes things worse instead of better. Loved “Cathedral” surround mode on my old Sunfire TG Processor. One of the many reasons I reject the term audiophile, I prefer enthusiast. Nothing to be ashamed of. The vast majority of imaging is artificial yet people construct their systems to maximize this effect and enjoy them immensely. No reason you can't enjoy a similar artificial experience just as much. www.dagogo.com/how-important-is-soundstaging/ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 16:56:54 GMT -5
Audio/video is entertainment and if someone likes the artificial sound fields, good for them.
When we have a get-together/party, my wife like to select "all channel stereo" and never once has anyone said it ruined the song.
I use to use Matrix (Denon) on old mono-movies, it was cool.
I find it interesting to hand the remote to someone and let then play around with the different sound fields/effects.
My neighbor owned Planet Dallas recording studio & I spent time there- what my college education was suppose to get me into. I'll tell you a fact; the engineers spend a lot of time placing the mics "just so" (& the artist positions too) to get the exact sound and effect he and the artist wants. Then the mixing of those mics are fine tuned on the board. A good engineer is worth their weight in gold. I want to hear the final result as intended. But there are times when our guest are the prime focus and music is just for background entertainment.
Even though sound is a science, let's not forget, it's still entertainment. Serve it up the way you want it, you paid for it.
As for the snobby "audiophiles"...well they don't want to hear what I have to say anyways.
Enjoy the music!!!
btw- I want analogue in/out as an option regardless if the the world is digital.
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Jan 19, 2018 17:08:37 GMT -5
Oh come on - audiophiles aren't snobby. They just want to hear Frank Sinatra sing 'The Summer Wind' and not Donald Duck.
|
|
