|
|
Post by lrobertson on Sept 7, 2018 16:16:27 GMT -5
I think what is confusing is I thought RMC-1 had two sharc chips which have 32 cores together.. I’m probably using the wrong language. From what I’ve been told processing takes 8 of those the standard 16 channels takes 16 and there are 8 left available for expansion. So that’s what limits that to 24 channels. Then you have XMC-2 which I assume is a single sharc board utilizing the 16 cores for processing the 3 balanced channels and the other 10 unbalanced channels. So where does the RMC-2 fall with respect to the processing considering there are 16 channels. I wonder if it is just a beefed up XMC-2 rather than a lite RMC-1. Or maybe their is a way to have 24 cores rather than 16 or 32.. In which case I wonder when they throw in a 40 core into a system to have 32 channels.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Sept 7, 2018 16:17:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Sept 7, 2018 16:24:00 GMT -5
I think what is confusing is I thought RMC-1 had two sharc chips which have 32 cores together.. I’m probably using the wrong language. From what I’ve been told processing takes 8 of those the standard 16 channels takes 16 and there are 8 left available for expansion. So that’s what limits that to 24 channels. Then you have XMC-2 which I assume is a single sharc board utilizing the 16 cores for processing the 3 balanced channels and the other 10 unbalanced channels. So where does the RMC-2 fall with respect to the processing considering there are 16 channels. I wonder if it is just a beefed up XMC-2 rather than a lite RMC-1. That's a more specific "nerd" question we don't have an answer from Emotiva yet. No offense intended, just saying, less nerdy folks don't care as long as it works and works well. We will find out in due time. Here's is what I would gather in terms of performance based on what Lonnie has said about 2 channel and taking an educated guess: XMC-2, RMC-2, RMC-1 = Front 3 Channels will sound identical RMC-2 & RMC-1 = 16 channels will sound identical. |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Sept 7, 2018 16:25:40 GMT -5
So you’re expecting the ‘thin client streaming module’ will have its own Ethernet port? That seemed to be the inference of the comments I got. Not a big deal, but also not the way I would have done it. I do understand Emotiva's concern about running various random Streaming Clients within their main Processing/Control OS. I would have just put in a small Ethernet switch inside the box and had a second microprocessor/OS with a different Ethernet MAC Address handle it. But, it's also hard to argue with the cost effectiveness of spending ~$70 for an external Rasperry Pi running RoPieee with a USB Link. Casey |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Sept 7, 2018 16:36:13 GMT -5
I think what is confusing is I thought RMC-1 had two sharc chips which have 32 cores together.. ... The last we heard they're using the Analog Devices ADSP-SC573. From the Data Sheet this looks like is has 1 ARM Cortex A5 core operating in the 500-800MHz range and 2 SHARC DSP cores operating at 500MHz. And I think the RMC-1 has two of the ADSP-SC573 chips ... The current RMC-1 Product Page also says that it's using a Texas Instruments AM-1808 as the main system control processor. This looks like a single-core ARM operating in the 375-456MHz range. Casey |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Sept 7, 2018 16:38:05 GMT -5
To me it’s more about wondering how modular they’ve made these systems for channel integration. It may simply be adding sharc cores for more channels at this point. Just wondering how long after I buy my RMC-1 they will be offering their 32, 40, and 48 channel variant.. (jk)
So then obviously 32 cores was the wrong term. I wonder if I am misremembering but I could of swore the 2 sharc cores (not boards then) had 32 somethings or maybe it’s the adsp chips. Haha I’ll wait and listen for the official “nerd” run down as Bonzo put it. Speculating with this stuff isn’t my thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by jjkessler on Sept 7, 2018 17:09:27 GMT -5
If I am only running a 7.2.4 setup and don't plan on more channels and I can run the 7 and 4 channels on balanced monoblocks with XLR Connectors (XPA-1 and XPA-1L), what am I better off with?
My current XMC-1, IF, They offer an ATMOS upgrade, XMC-2, or the RMC-2. Main question being what is the difference between the XMC-2 and RMC-2? Is it just the number of balanced channels or something more?
|
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Sept 7, 2018 18:00:06 GMT -5
I’d assume since you didn’t say your room can’t accommodate more speakers I’d just pony up for the RMC-2 just in case in the future you wanted wides and maybe they end up supporting 11.1.4 if cutting more holes in your ceiling doesn’t sound good to you. We can all benefit from multiple subs as well keeping it at 9.3.4. Maybe even a 10.2.4 with the Atmos center rear if they choose to support it. I’d be surprised if a blind listening test with the same speaker layout between the two would be easily discernible though if you’re really set on speaker count.
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Sept 7, 2018 18:18:04 GMT -5
So you’re expecting the ‘thin client streaming module’ will have its own Ethernet port? That seemed to be the inference of the comments I got. Not a big deal, but also not the way I would have done it. I do understand Emotiva's concern about running various random Streaming Clients within their main Processing/Control OS. I would have just put in a small Ethernet switch inside the box and had a second microprocessor/OS with a different Ethernet MAC Address handle it. But, it's also hard to argue with the cost effectiveness of spending ~$70 for an external Rasperry Pi running RoPieee with a USB Link. Casey Right, just YAC (yet another cable) only a big deal if it’s the 9th port on your 8 port switch (or some other such limitation), I’m not a Roon user at this point so may not affect me, just curious on the topology. Unlikely they’ll beat that price too. |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Sept 7, 2018 18:34:03 GMT -5
If I am only running a 7.2.4 setup and don't plan on more channels and I can run the 7 and 4 channels on balanced monoblocks with XLR Connectors (XPA-1 and XPA-1L), what am I better off with? My current XMC-1, IF, They offer an ATMOS upgrade, XMC-2, or the RMC-2. Main question being what is the difference between the XMC-2 and RMC-2? Is it just the number of balanced channels or something more? You have the gist of the differences, it doesn’t make since to try to spell too much out until we have more information. With anything but an upgraded XMC-1 — which will only have RCA Outputs for Atmos channels — XLRs are your best choice. With XPA-1 and 1L for Atmos I’d probably go RMC-2 as you’re fully balanced on all channels (into your fully balanced amps). |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Sept 7, 2018 20:23:43 GMT -5
The news on processors is certainly great to hear, but I am wondering - is there anything else newsworthy from Emotiva at CEDIA? Like Casey, I am interested in hearing about the thin client streamer. I also am interested in DC-2 news. And, now that they have the toaster development behind them...what about the clock? Mark Sorry, I’m out on the clock, need something with more accurate time 😦😧😮😆 |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,088
|
Post by klinemj on Sept 7, 2018 20:33:28 GMT -5
The news on processors is certainly great to hear, but I am wondering - is there anything else newsworthy from Emotiva at CEDIA? Like Casey, I am interested in hearing about the thin client streamer. I also am interested in DC-2 news. And, now that they have the toaster development behind them...what about the clock? Mark Sorry, I’m out on the clock, need something with more accurate time 😦😧😮😆 What if it kept time in dog years? Mark |
|
|
|
Post by tasdom on Sept 7, 2018 21:33:01 GMT -5
"Emotiva Audio is in an expansive mood at the CEDIA Expo, launching an AV preamp/processor/tuner with the processing power and expansion ports that will enable it to support 11.5.8 channels of Dolby Atmos surround. When the $4,999-suggested RMC-1 is available Nov. 15, it will support 9.1.6 channels of Atmos out of the box, but three optional back-chassis XLR-output modules will bring the channel count to 24 to support more immersive-audio channels, add more subwoofers, biamplify multiple speakers, or implement a mix of all three. Because all outputs are fully assignable, “we can make any channel what we want it to be,” said VP/CTO Lonnie Vaughn (pictured above at right with president/CEO Dan Laufman and the RMC-1). The XLR-output modules will be available in the first quarter and bring the cost of a 24-channel version of the RMC-1 to around $6,000 to $6,500, Laufman told Sound & Vision. The AVP is the company’s first audio component with Dolby Atmos and DTS:X decoding, but more are on the way, including the 13-channel $2,999 XMC-2 AVP in early January 2019. It will be capable of immersive speaker layouts up to 7.2.4 speakers and will be followed later in the first quarter by the 16-channel $3,799 RMC-2, capable of 9.1.6-channel speaker layouts. Neither offers the channel-expansion options of the RMC-1. Dolby Atmos and DTS:X will also come to the company’s first AVR, due early in 2019. It will feature 15.1 channels of output to support 9.1.6-speaker layouts and will be rated at 15x200 watts into 8 ohms. “The outputs are fully assignable, and each XLR expansion module contains a dedicated dual-core Sharc processor and DACs,” Laufman said of the RMC-1. The expansion bays can also accept a balanced input expansion module, a MC/MM phono module, and a thin-client streaming module. All 16 of the RMC-1’s 16 channels are fully balanced, and each channel is processed by a separate AKM Verita 32-bit DAC. Each channels supports 11-band parametric equalization through the free Room EQ Wizard room-correction software. The processor also features 15.1 or 13.3 Dirac Live automatic room correction running on all 16 channels at a 96kHz sampling rate. For music listening, the RMC-1 decodes high-resolution audio, including single- and double-rate DSD, through HDMI- and USB-connected sources. Eight HDMI 2.0b inputs support 4K video with high dynamic range (HDR), including Dolby Vision. Dual HDMI outputs connect to two displays in a room, a flat-panel display for daytime viewing and a projector for nighttime viewing. There’s also an AM/FM tuner for those who listen to analog radio. To deepen the bass response of home theaters powered by the RMC-1 and other components, Emotiva expanded the subwoofer options in Airmotiv speaker series and stepped up performance with 12- and 15-inch models rated at 500 and 650 watts respectively at a suggested $799 and $1,199. The 15-inch S15 is Emotiva’s most powerful sub. The new subs complement a current 10-inch model. All three feature downward-firing driver, high-excursion passive radiator, acoustically inert high-density fiberboard (HDF) cabinets, and Class D amplification." Read more at www.soundandvision.com/content/emotiva-gets-ready-1158-dolby-atmos#viewKWLgi4ZBRRcJ.99
|
|
|
|
Post by tslack on Sept 8, 2018 4:23:51 GMT -5
When the $4,999-suggested RMC-1 is available Nov. 15, it will support 9.1.6 channels of Atmos out of the box, but three optional back-chassis XLR-output modules will bring the channel count to 24 to support more immersive-audio channels, add more subwoofers, biamplify multiple speakers, or implement a mix of all three. Because all outputs are fully assignable, “we can make any channel what we want it to be,” said VP/CTO Lonnie Vaughn (pictured above at right with president/CEO Dan Laufman and the RMC-1). Fingers crossed-over...YES! Dan said,"...like doing active crossovers for bi-amping your mains." |
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,434
|
Post by Lsc on Sept 8, 2018 16:26:53 GMT -5
So from what we have seen in the past, the RMC-2 is the XMC-1 gen3 enhanced to 16 channels and the XMC-2 looks like the XMC-1 with Dolby Atmos (7.2.4) 13 channels.
So based on this the RMC-2 is probably balanced across the front 3 channels and the XMC-2 will be balanced on the L/R channels only.
Originally, Lonnie had said the XMC-1 gen3 would sound identical to the RMC-1 for 2 channel. So that probably holds true for the RMC-2.
The XMC-2 is probably a little lower in terms of sound quality and probably sounds as good as the current XMC-1 which as you all know sound very good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Sept 8, 2018 17:52:02 GMT -5
So from what we have seen in the past, the RMC-2 is the XMC-1 gen3 enhanced to 16 channels and the XMC-2 looks like the XMC-1 with Dolby Atmos (7.2.4) 13 channels. So based on this the RMC-2 is probably balanced across the front 3 channels and the XMC-2 will be balanced on the L/R channels only. Originally, Lonnie had said the XMC-1 gen3 would sound identical to the RMC-1 for 2 channel. So that probably holds true for the RMC-2. The XMC-2 is probably a little lower in terms of sound quality and probably sounds as good as the current XMC-1 which as you all know sound very good. I think you are looking at it backwards. I have posted this already in this thread but I will do so again. Note, these are not 100% facts yet, but they are based on the real history of what has been said or implied and what the pictures show. $5000 RMC-1 = Comes with 16 fully balanced channels and 3 expansion module slots. Processor power can handle up to 24 channels (which will require 2 expansion modules at an additional cost of a yet to be firmed up $1000 to $1500.) Basically, buy this big boy if you plan to use the slots. $3800 RMC-2 (dumb name, should be RMC-1L) = Comes with 16 fully balanced channels. No expansion slots. So it is what it is. Its the original RMC-1 until we complained and got the expansion modules. Processing power is less than the full blown RMC-1 BECAUSE it only needs to process 16 channels. Its sound quality will be equal to the RMC-1 for 16 channels. $3000 XMC-2 = Comes with 13 channels, only the front 3 of which are fully balanced. So, as Lonnie said, it will sound identical to the RMC-1 (and by extension the RMC-1L (that's what I'm calling it) for 2 channel stereo. But for the rest, there COULD be a sound quality difference since those 10 are not fully balanced. YMMV. Of course EMO will need to confirm, but this is how I see things. Which makes the RMC-1L the price to performance leader, unless you want more or less channels. |
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator 
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,850
|
Post by LCSeminole on Sept 8, 2018 18:13:11 GMT -5
So from what we have seen in the past, the RMC-2 is the XMC-1 gen3 enhanced to 16 channels and the XMC-2 looks like the XMC-1 with Dolby Atmos (7.2.4) 13 channels. So based on this the RMC-2 is probably balanced across the front 3 channels and the XMC-2 will be balanced on the L/R channels only. Originally, Lonnie had said the XMC-1 gen3 would sound identical to the RMC-1 for 2 channel. So that probably holds true for the RMC-2. The XMC-2 is probably a little lower in terms of sound quality and probably sounds as good as the current XMC-1 which as you all know sound very good. I think you are looking at it backwards. I have posted this already in this thread but I will do so again. Note, these are not 100% facts yet, but they are based on the real history of what has been said or implied and what the pictures show. $5000 RMC-1 = Comes with 16 fully balanced channels and 3 expansion module slots. Processor power can handle up to 24 channels (which will require 2 expansion modules at an additional cost of a yet to be firmed up $1000 to $1500.) Basically, buy this big boy if you plan to use the slots. $3800 RMC-2 (dumb name, should be RMC-1L) = Comes with 16 fully balanced channels. No expansion slots. So it is what it is. Its the original RMC-1 until we complained and got the expansion modules. Processing power is less than the full blown RMC-1 BECAUSE it only needs to process 16 channels. Its sound quality will be equal to the RMC-1 for 16 channels. $3000 XMC-2 = Comes with 13 channels, only the front 3 of which are fully balanced. So, as Lonnie said, it will sound identical to the RMC-1 (and by extension the RMC-1L (that's what I'm calling it) for 2 channel stereo. But for the rest, there COULD be a sound quality difference since those 10 are not fully balanced. YMMV. Of course EMO will need to confirm, but this is how I see things. Which makes the RMC-1L the price to performance leader, unless you want more or less channels. With the given limited information, this is the conclusion I've come to as well. |
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,434
|
Post by Lsc on Sept 8, 2018 18:17:44 GMT -5
So from what we have seen in the past, the RMC-2 is the XMC-1 gen3 enhanced to 16 channels and the XMC-2 looks like the XMC-1 with Dolby Atmos (7.2.4) 13 channels. So based on this the RMC-2 is probably balanced across the front 3 channels and the XMC-2 will be balanced on the L/R channels only. Originally, Lonnie had said the XMC-1 gen3 would sound identical to the RMC-1 for 2 channel. So that probably holds true for the RMC-2. The XMC-2 is probably a little lower in terms of sound quality and probably sounds as good as the current XMC-1 which as you all know sound very good. I think you are looking at it backwards. I have posted this already in this thread but I will do so again. Note, these are not 100% facts yet, but they are based on the real history of what has been said or implied and what the pictures show. $5000 RMC-1 = Comes with 16 fully balanced channels and 3 expansion module slots. Processor power can handle up to 24 channels (which will require 2 expansion modules at an additional cost of a yet to be firmed up $1000 to $1500.) Basically, buy this big boy if you plan to use the slots. $3800 RMC-2 (dumb name, should be RMC-1L) = Comes with 16 fully balanced channels. No expansion slots. So it is what it is. Its the original RMC-1 until we complained and got the expansion modules. Processing power is less than the full blown RMC-1 BECAUSE it only needs to process 16 channels. Its sound quality will be equal to the RMC-1 for 16 channels. $3000 XMC-2 = Comes with 13 channels, only the front 3 of which are fully balanced. So, as Lonnie said, it will sound identical to the RMC-1 (and by extension the RMC-1L (that's what I'm calling it) for 2 channel stereo. But for the rest, there COULD be a sound quality difference since those 10 are not fully balanced. YMMV. Of course EMO will need to confirm, but this is how I see things. Which makes the RMC-1L the price to performance leader, unless you want more or less channels. I was at Axpona this year and took pictures of the XMC-1 gen3. It looked visually exactly like what’s now the RMC-2 but had 13 channels (front and back it looked the same). It was supposed to retail for $3499. Now the newly released XMC-2 looks exactly like the old XMC-1. So when I say the new RMC-2 is like the old XMC-1 gen3 but is now 16 channels, I believe I’m right. How many channels are balanced I guess we will see when Emotiva releases that info but there may be some changes. Either way I was very surprised to see the XMC-1 gen3 priced so close to the RMC-1 at Axpona and also the starting price of these next gen pre-pros seemed to start at a pretty high starting point. Now with the quick rework and going with 3 models which brings the starting price down to $2999 sounds a little more promising. I think I’m looking at the RMC-2 or the new receiver- we will see at the next Axpona 😊 |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Sept 8, 2018 18:20:19 GMT -5
I think you are looking at it backwards. I have posted this already in this thread but I will do so again. Note, these are not 100% facts yet, but they are based on the real history of what has been said or implied and what the pictures show. $5000 RMC-1 = Comes with 16 fully balanced channels and 3 expansion module slots. Processor power can handle up to 24 channels (which will require 2 expansion modules at an additional cost of a yet to be firmed up $1000 to $1500.) Basically, buy this big boy if you plan to use the slots. $3800 RMC-2 (dumb name, should be RMC-1L) = Comes with 16 fully balanced channels. No expansion slots. So it is what it is. Its the original RMC-1 until we complained and got the expansion modules. Processing power is less than the full blown RMC-1 BECAUSE it only needs to process 16 channels. Its sound quality will be equal to the RMC-1 for 16 channels. $3000 XMC-2 = Comes with 13 channels, only the front 3 of which are fully balanced. So, as Lonnie said, it will sound identical to the RMC-1 (and by extension the RMC-1L (that's what I'm calling it) for 2 channel stereo. But for the rest, there COULD be a sound quality difference since those 10 are not fully balanced. YMMV. Of course EMO will need to confirm, but this is how I see things. Which makes the RMC-1L the price to performance leader, unless you want more or less channels. With the given limited information, this is the conclusion I've come to as well. The RMC-1L is the big question mark. We have nothing on it except from Nick's quick post earlier in this thread. On a personal note in general, man I just wish the RMC-1L had 7.1 inputs and an analog record out. If it did, it would be the perfect machine for me and a 7.3.6 set up. But alas, no dice. 😞 |
|
|
|
Post by brubacca on Sept 8, 2018 18:26:34 GMT -5
How about a processor in the 1K range with Dirac Live?
|
|
