|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Dec 4, 2018 17:47:02 GMT -5
I think that the argument that KeithL is making is not that Streaming Music isn't a big market, but that there are already satisfactory solutions in the market for both people who don't particularly care about sound quality (any number of Raspberry Pi and similar) and high end (Sonore Signature Rendu SE, SOtM sMS-200Ultra Neo, etc.). It's not clear that there's a place for yet another player. Moreover, supposing that there is " something" that's going on that's " better" using these high end devices, then the right answer is to figure out what that " something" is and just fix the USB (and other inputs) on the XMC-1/XMC-2/RMC-1/RMC-1L not to be so finicky. Because, honestly, it is in fact just Digital Audio Data and a Raspberry Pi-style solution should just work. If it doesn't, or it doesn't sound as good as one of the high-end solutions, figure out what's going on and fix it. Casey |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Dec 4, 2018 17:53:38 GMT -5
P.S. I should mention that my own desire for a Streaming Module input to the RMC-1 (XMC-2, RMC-1L) is simply to avoid the clutter of more boxes, power/signal cables behind my stereo. I would prefer to simply route an RJ45 1Gb/s cable in and be done with it. I'm guessing at this point that I'm just going to have to buy off on a separate box/cables. But even given that, I'd like it to be the case that the cheapest solution would sound exactly the same as the most expensive solution (modulo something that can't even get the bits across).
Casey
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Dec 4, 2018 17:59:43 GMT -5
I think that the argument that KeithL is making is not that Streaming Music isn't a big market, but that there are already satisfactory solutions in the market for both people who don't particularly care about sound quality (any number of Raspberry Pi and similar) and high end (Sonore Signature Rendu SE, SOtM sMS-200Ultra Neo, etc.). It's not clear that there's a place for yet another player. Moreover, supposing that there is " something" that's going on that's " better" using these high end devices, then the right answer is to figure out what that " something" is and just fix the USB (and other inputs) on the XMC-1/XMC-2/RMC-1/RMC-1L not to be so finicky. Because, honestly, it is in fact just Digital Audio Data and a Raspberry Pi-style solution should just work. If it doesn't, or it doesn't sound as good as one of the high-end solutions, figure out what's going on and fix it. Casey If it ain't broke don't fix it. It isn't quite clear what you mean by "supposing" that there is. That there is what and what the RMC, XMC or any other current Emotiva products for that matter have to do with this conversation?🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by brubacca on Dec 4, 2018 18:09:02 GMT -5
Streaming isn't a big market share? High end Home Theater isn't a big market. Whats the real market for a $5k processor?
I'd put forward that streaming whether internal to the house or external to the house is larger than the market for the RMC-1 or even XMC-1.
If the argument is that Emotiva has no value to add to separate themselves from the others, then that's their decision.
Edit- I'm out. No more posts on this from me. I've made my position quite clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Dec 4, 2018 18:32:59 GMT -5
If it ain't broke don't fix it. It isn't quite clear what you mean by "supposing" that there is. That there is what and what the RMC, XMC or any other current Emotiva products for that matter have to do with this conversation?🤔 I'm not quite understanding what you're saying. And it sounds like you weren't quite sure what I was saying either. I do tend to drag on with too many clauses. Sorry. Basically, what I'm saying is, I think, very close to what KeithL is saying. We have two systems under question with the following signal paths: A: {Music Files on Storage} -> {Server} -> {Network} -> {Device "A"} -> {USB} -> {DAC} B: {Music Files on Storage} -> {Server} -> {Network} -> {Device "B"} -> {USB} -> {DAC} With the only difference being {Device "A"} versus {Device "B"}. The claim is that {Device "A"} results in "better sound" than {Device "B"}. But since the only real point of {Device "A"} and {Device "B"} is to faithfully transfer Digital Audio Data (originally from the {Music Files on Storage}) to {DAC} in the final hop from {Network} across {USB}, we're left with a conundrum regarding the "better sound" claim. Where are things in Digital Audio Data Chain changing in a manner which causes {DAC} to generate something different? One possibility is at {Server}. In the Roon Core as {Server}, it does transcode {Music Files on Storage} differently if the Roon Bridge {Device "A"}/{Device "B"} present different capabilities (can't handle DSD, only PCM up to 96MHz, etc.) So that should certainly be looked at. Luckily this is pretty easy to do in the Roon Controller Signal Path view. Another possibility is {DAC} has a really crappy USB Input that's extremely finicky about getting data exactly on time and/or sensitive to electrical interference, etc. (And note that we can substitute any other final Digital Data mechanism for USB at this point. Optical S/PIDIF, i2s, AEC, etc.) This seems a lot harder to measure/observe in the Audio World. In the High-Speed Ethernet World where I operate, all Network Interfaces and Drivers have copious statistics which can measure ongoing error rates, etc. Casey |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Dec 4, 2018 18:50:32 GMT -5
If it ain't broke don't fix it. It isn't quite clear what you mean by "supposing" that there is. That there is what and what the RMC, XMC or any other current Emotiva products for that matter have to do with this conversation?🤔 I'm not quite understanding what you're saying. And it sounds like you weren't quite sure what I was saying either. I do tend to drag on with too many clauses. Sorry. Basically, what I'm saying is, I think, very close to what KeithL is saying. We have two systems under question with the following signal paths: A: {Music Files on Storage} -> {Server} -> {Network} -> {Device "A"} -> {USB} -> {DAC} B: {Music Files on Storage} -> {Server} -> {Network} -> {Device "B"} -> {USB} -> {DAC} With the only difference being {Device "A"} versus {Device "B"}. The claim is that {Device "A"} results in "better sound" than {Device "B"}. But since the only real point of {Device "A"} and {Device "B"} is to faithfully transfer Digital Audio Data (originally from the {Music Files on Storage}) to {DAC} in the final hop from {Network} across {USB}, we're left with a conundrum regarding the "better sound" claim. Where are things in Digital Audio Data Chain changing in a manner which causes {DAC} to generate something different? One possibility is at {Server}. In the Roon Core as {Server}, it does transcode {Music Files on Storage} differently if the Roon Bridge {Device "A"}/{Device "B"} present different capabilities (can't handle DSD, only PCM up to 96MHz, etc.) So that should certainly be looked at. Luckily this is pretty easy to do in the Roon Controller Signal Path view. Another possibility is {DAC} has a really crappy USB Input that's extremely finicky about getting data exactly on time and/or sensitive to electrical interference, etc. (And note that we can substitute any other final Digital Data mechanism for USB at this point. Optical S/PIDIF, i2s, AEC, etc.) This seems a lot harder to measure/observe in the Audio World. In the High-Speed Ethernet World where I operate, all Network Interfaces and Drivers have copious statistics which can measure ongoing error rates, etc. Casey So what if it sounds "better" with device A regardless of other components. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,090
|
Post by klinemj on Dec 4, 2018 21:10:38 GMT -5
To be quite candid.... at this point I don't know the current status of a streamer as a product. There is certainly some interest in high-end streaming players and similar products. However, from what we've seen, most of the market is satisfied with products like the Roku, or Sonos, or the Apple TV. Thanks for your candor. Now here's mine. First, please stop trying to tell people who are very familiar with the excellent sound of these products why they shouldn't sound better. Really. Just. Stop. If Emotiva has no interest in making one, fine. We have other options. As such, we don't need to keep hearing the opinion of someone who doesn't think they should sound better and who doesn't: a) know how good they sound b) know how they achieve this great sound c) care how they work because they are not personally into streaming anyway and the company they work for isn't planning to be in the market Second, I find it very humorous that you would say what you say about high-end streaming products when a long-time Emotiva catch-phrase is "rethink high end". I guess that means "as long as the high end products are not streamers, even though the market seems to be going that way". Mark (my haiku will come later...) |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Dec 5, 2018 0:36:30 GMT -5
... Basically, what I'm saying is, I think, very close to what KeithL is saying. We have two systems under question with the following signal paths: A: {Music Files on Storage} -> {Server} -> {Network} -> {Device "A"} -> {USB} -> {DAC} B: {Music Files on Storage} -> {Server} -> {Network} -> {Device "B"} -> {USB} -> {DAC} With the only difference being {Device "A"} versus {Device "B"}. The claim is that {Device "A"} results in "better sound" than {Device "B"}. But since the only real point of {Device "A"} and {Device "B"} is to faithfully transfer Digital Audio Data (originally from the {Music Files on Storage}) to {DAC} in the final hop from {Network} across {USB}, we're left with a conundrum regarding the "better sound" claim. Where are things in Digital Audio Data Chain changing in a manner which causes {DAC} to generate something different? ... So what if it sounds "better" with device A regardless of other components. That's an "interesting" piece of "data", but doesn't lend itself well to a set of easily Testable Hypotheses. For a good, well focused, [Repeatable] Testable Hypothesis, you need to restrict the Experimental Variables/Parameters down to the smallest set possible in order to make reasonably clear conclusions. And, since many here (including a good friend of mine who just purchased an SOtM sMS-200ultra Neo) are claiming that it's the simple difference of {Device "A"} versus {Device "B"} that's making a difference, that seems to be the simplest experiment to test, measure, investigate. Now, if only I had all of this equipment, associated test/measurement equipment, and a ton of time, ... (sigh) Casey |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Dec 5, 2018 10:33:55 GMT -5
I think that the argument that KeithL is making is not that Streaming Music isn't a big market, but that there are already satisfactory solutions in the market...Casey Were that an excuse to not offer a product, then Emotiva would never have entered: The home theater processor market The loudspeaker market The amplifier market Yet Emotiva HAS entered those markets, clawed out their market sector, and thrived despite the competition. If you want to succeed in the market, you have to compete. (any girl worth having is worth taking away from the guy who's currently with her). |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Dec 5, 2018 11:11:57 GMT -5
I think that the argument that KeithL is making is not that Streaming Music isn't a big market, but that there are already satisfactory solutions in the market...Casey Were that an excuse to not offer a product, then Emotiva would never have entered: The home theater processor market The loudspeaker market The amplifier market Yet Emotiva HAS entered those markets, clawed out their market sector, and thrived despite the competition. If you want to succeed in the market, you have to compete. (any girl worth having is worth taking away from the guy who's currently with her). I think any manufacturer has to weigh the costs of competition versus the expected profits when deciding whether or not to enter a market. With Emo, it was initially the amps; my first high-powered amp was an XPA-3 that I got on sale at a price no other company could come close to for something of its good quality. The loudspeakers offered similar value. Emo offered products of high quality for prices that were significantly lower than the competition with performance that matched or was often better than what the competition had. But when it comes to streaming, you have to consider how well does that fit with their existing production capabilities and what can they do to outdo the competition? Emo's reputation is not in this area. Had they gone into the Blu Ray arena, I would have bought an Oppo. And it must be a really tough market since Oppo decided to drop out. When it comes to headphone amps I'd stick with Schiit. I wouldn't consider an Emo headphone either, not when Sennheiser is still in business. On top of this, their pricing has gone up over the years so while the products still have much to offer, that edge over the competition has lessened. Like you said, if you want to succeed in the market, you have to compete. But you have to weigh all the factors to determine if you really have what it takes to compete and when it comes to streaming I don't think that's a worthwhile venture for Emo because they probably can't compete successfully. Now after I've gone and said this, they'll probably announce their first streaming product sometime in the next few days.  |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Dec 5, 2018 11:43:16 GMT -5
...But when it comes to streaming, you have to consider how well does that fit with their existing production capabilities and what can they do to outdo the competition? Emo's reputation is not in this area... Nor was their "reputation" in speakers - but they've succeeded there. An electronic streamer is well within Emotiva's production capabilities, and at this time the streamer market may be established, but the "enhanced streaming market" is currently owned by only two small, ugly ducklings - Sonore and SOtM. Other streaming companies will quickly reverse-engineer these devices and include similar effects in their streamers. But as of now, they HAVEN'T. Which looks like a business opportunity to any company who can quickly fill that hole. Now it may be that Emotiva is short on engineering staff due to the roll out of their most ambitious product ever, the RMC-1. But this is the purest of speculation on my part. Another option might be to buy out one of the two small companies selling these "enhanced streamers," patent the technology, and sell licensing to others who want to use it. I don't really think that either company has the resources to fight off a hostile takeover... And we can debate until the cows come home as to whether this would or wouldn't be a good business move for Emotiva, but ultimately the only opinions that count are Cathy & Dan Laufman's. Their money, their choice. I'd like to see Emotiva enter the streamer market and thrive. But they have to see the potential first. Boomzilla |
|
|
|
Post by brubacca on Dec 5, 2018 11:50:01 GMT -5
I just want to listen to some music.
I'm sick of the rest.
I love my not accurate Tube amp and my "must be bit altering" MicroRendu.
|
|
|
|
Post by chicagorspec on Dec 5, 2018 12:00:04 GMT -5
...But when it comes to streaming, you have to consider how well does that fit with their existing production capabilities and what can they do to outdo the competition? Emo's reputation is not in this area... Now it may be that Emotiva is short on engineering staff due to the roll out of their most ambitious product ever, the RMC-1. Boomzilla I could speculate as to one other reason they’re short on engineering staff... |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Dec 5, 2018 12:02:32 GMT -5
What he said ^^
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Dec 5, 2018 13:11:16 GMT -5
Boomzilla, I'm pretty much in agreement with monkumonku: It only makes sense for Emotiva to create products where they can exhibit a positive value proposition. I.e. there's really no point in Emotiva trying to sell Emotiva branded LP Slip Covers. Right now the Streaming Music Market has both High-End ($600+) and Low-End ($100-) product offerings. There's apparently something unknown going on with the High-End product offerings with respect to some (all?) DACs on the markets compared to the Low-End offerings — at least if we're going to believe all of the reports here and elsewhere. In order for Emotiva to create a viable product in this space, they either have to rush to the Low-End with a product on the order of $50- which isn't viable; or replicate the High-End performance difference with a product significantly under $600. For the latter, you have to figure out why these "High-End" products are different[1] (that's a bunch of Non-Recurring Engineering research), decide how much it would cost you to build a competing product once you knew what was going on, figure out how large the potential market is, and then decide whether you could profitably sell it for significantly less than $600. This last bit is important, because if your price target is, say $300, then your cost of manufacture needs to be ~$50-100 in order to pay for itself. And again, there are already in-place products that people seem to like and have garnered good market mind-share. Casey [1] And, as I've said any number of times, if there is something to "figure out" which affects Emotiva products, then I'd rather Emotiva just fix their products in such a manner as to obviate the need for "High-End" Music Streamer products.
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,090
|
Post by klinemj on Dec 5, 2018 14:41:43 GMT -5
Boomzilla, I'm pretty much in agreement with monkumonku: It only makes sense for Emotiva to create products where they can exhibit a positive value proposition. I.e. there's really no point in Emotiva trying to sell Emotiva branded LP Slip Covers. Right now the Streaming Music Market has both High-End ($600+) and Low-End ($100-) product offerings. There's apparently something unknown going on with the High-End product offerings with respect to some (all?) DACs on the markets compared to the Low-End offerings — at least if we're going to believe all of the reports here and elsewhere. In order for Emotiva to create a viable product in this space, they either have to rush to the Low-End with a product on the order of $50- which isn't viable; or replicate the High-End performance difference with a product significantly under $600. For the latter, you have to figure out why these "High-End" products are different[1] (that's a bunch of Non-Recurring Engineering research), decide how much it would cost you to build a competing product once you knew what was going on, figure out how large the potential market is, and then decide whether you could profitably sell it for significantly less than $600. This last bit is important, because if your price target is, say $300, then your cost of manufacture needs to be ~$50-100 in order to pay for itself. And again, there are already in-place products that people seem to like and have garnered good market mind-share. Casey [1] And, as I've said any number of times, if there is something to "figure out" which affects Emotiva products, then I'd rather Emotiva just fix their products in such a manner as to obviate the need for "High-End" Music Streamer products. You are a bit off on the "high end"...the high end costs can run up into the thousands. That said - is there room for them? I don't know - haven't done the cost analysis. Maybe there is, maybe there is not. I do know this...they have, so far, been competing in the CD player market. Time will tell if they plan to continue or not. They have been selling that at $599, and it would seem to me that there is a lot more embedded cost in that than in one of these nifty little sound miracles a lot of us have raved about. If they have been making profit on the ERC-3 (and 2 and 1 before that...), then they surely can make a profit on a streamer for $600 or less. And, if they could match the sound of microrendu at $600 or less with power supply included - that would be a value point I'd be interested in. And, if they could offer something like the signature rendu SE sound for half that cost - that would be a breakthrough and carve out a very nice space for them. Mark |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,090
|
Post by klinemj on Dec 5, 2018 14:54:16 GMT -5
Now, what you all have been waiting for...an audiophile haiku related to this topic! Bits are bits no doubt
Some sound better to me now
I do not care why
Thank you, thank you very much..."stay 'til Thursday...try the pork!" Mark |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Dec 5, 2018 14:55:10 GMT -5
Mic dropped ^^
|
|
|
|
Post by chicagorspec on Dec 5, 2018 14:55:55 GMT -5
Now, what you all have been waiting for...an audiophile haiku related to this topic! Bits are bits no doubt
Some sound better to me now
I do not care why
Thank you, thank you very much..."stay 'til Thursday...try the pork!" Mark He'll be here all week, folks. |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Dec 5, 2018 15:05:24 GMT -5
Huh, wasn't the line something like "I'll be here all week folks, try the veal!"[1] ... :-) And on the whole profitable product space issue, I'll be the first to say that I've often been surprised at some of the products I've seen Emotiva develop because I didn't see how they could make money (XLR Cables, Power Cables, CD Players, etc.) So obviously I'm wrong. (Or maybe Emotiva has been losing money for years and is a Vanity Project of some rich donor.) Casey [1] What is the root of the cultural reference: "I'm here all week, try the veal"? |
|
