|
Post by davidl81 on Sept 18, 2019 11:48:10 GMT -5
. It is something which Trinnov or StormAudio can do and what really sets them apart from the rest. That, and the price tag. Also think about it from a user's point of view. Most people want to have an XLR output that says (Center, Left, Right etc). They don't want output 1, output 2, output 3 for 16 channels then have to write down which output goes to which speaker so they can set it up in the menu. I guess some would be okay with it (just a more complex setup), some would hate it, and a small few would like the flexibility. I just don't see it being a big enough need for the small few who would want it compared to the end user who would be bothered by it. Remember most Storm/Trinnov products are sold and installed by professional installers. Most Emotiva products are bought and installed by end users so Emotiva still has to have their product tailor to their base customer.
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Sept 18, 2019 12:35:22 GMT -5
Maybe we could expect something of this sort for an RMC-2 development.
|
|
|
Post by bolle on Sept 18, 2019 12:45:23 GMT -5
Would be great if something like that would be considered for the RMC-2.
You could label all of the outputs double, e.g. "Center/8" - no harm done.
I would just love that kind of flexibility and also the added sound quality (what Emotiva is all about). I am not interest in ceiling speakers but very much in active speakers and DIY and would just love to take one round of DA-AD conversion out of the loop and remove the external DSPs.
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Sept 18, 2019 13:02:15 GMT -5
Its worth waiting patiently for the final 1.6 firmware as judging on a work in progress beta that obviously needs more work to stabilise it doesn't do the RMC1 any favours in a review imho . If the audio syncing/locking audio timing aren't improved it only delays the dirac incorporation I feel..
|
|
|
Post by thrillcat on Sept 18, 2019 13:34:28 GMT -5
This guy read an article on the web telling him to use his hands during his videos. He took it to heart.
|
|
|
Post by tagmanz on Sept 18, 2019 15:18:25 GMT -5
. It is something which Trinnov or StormAudio can do and what really sets them apart from the rest. That, and the price tag. It's not just Trinnov and Stormaudio that have this functionality by the looks of it. Based on the back panel photos in this article it would appear that the new Arcam/JBL Synthesis SDP-55/AudioControl Maestro platform from Harman will have at least 4 assignable channels. www.stereo.net.au/news/arcam-unveils-new-models-in-hda-rangeBased on announced pricing of US$4500 the Arcam AV40 will sit mid way between the RMC-1L and RMC-1. It's more a direct competitor for the RMC-L however as it lacks expandability. I can still achieve my 7.2.6 setup described previously using either a minidsp or possibly the future bass expansion module but it just seems such a shame. Based on Keith's comments above it would seem with a little forethought during coding they could have had this functionality already with no additional hardware required. However. As the saying goes hindsight is a wonderful thing.
|
|
|
Post by davidl81 on Sept 18, 2019 15:35:20 GMT -5
Its worth waiting patiently for the final 1.6 firmware as judging on a work in progress beta that obviously needs more work to stabilise it doesn't do the RMC1 any favours in a review imho . If the audio syncing/locking audio timing aren't improved it only delays the dirac incorporation I feel.. I think his review is pretty fair. I think some of his issues were using older firmware as he stated in the review. For instance with 1.5 I get the delay in John Wick 3 that he was talking about, but its only about 3-5 seconds maybe. Not the 26 seconds he mentioned. Mostly everything else he said was very fair. The unit does sound great, but it still has some minor quirks. At his point my biggest need is Dirac and also I think there may be an issues with DTS Neutral X based on other reports here.
|
|
|
Post by overtheair on Sept 18, 2019 17:38:03 GMT -5
8 hours ago KeithL said: The outputs on the RMC-1 are all identical - in terms of hardware. However, in order to do so, the software would have to be entirely re-written, which isn't likely to happen. (As with most modern devices, the programming that runs the RMC-1 is quite complex already, and this would make it far more complex.) Both Dan and Lonnie said RMC-1 would have fully assignable outputs at 2018 CEDIA. 2. 16 to 24 Channels: Supports 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. 4. Assignable Outputs: Because all outputs are fully assignable, “we can make any channel what we want it to be,” said VP/CTO Lonnie Vaughn. “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. 5. Sharc for Expansion Modules: “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. T hey were talking about the expansion modules - Geesh, can't anyone read anymore? Lonnie's comment could be taken either way, i.e. just applying to expansion modules or more broadly to all RMC-1 outputs. The broader interpretation makes sense from an engineering perspective because despite Keith's comment that "the software would have to be entirely(?) re-written", it would have to be really badly written for that to be the case, (emphasis and question mark on the word "entirely" is mine because this seems to be a rather hyperbolic comment).
As far as the software is concerned any output should be trivially map-able to any virtual model for speaker and sub-woofer layouts. However there is no real point in doing this just to move outputs around. What matters is if additional functionality is also supported/planned for, whether the DSP engines have the processing capacity for extra processing and whether there is commercial justification for such extra functionality, such as extra sub-channels in the base 16-channels (more mainstream) or using multiple channels per speaker for active speakers as Bolle wishes (more of an edge case with likely a limited commercial market).
So more importantly, the relevance for existing and future RMC-1 owners is that the Monoprice Monolith HTP-1 is promising this level of flexibility in 16-channels, specifically wrt to numbers of subwoofers supported versus wides or extra ceiling speakers. The HTP-1 is also promising the new Dirac Bass Management, which could be a quite persuasive offering for a 7.4.4 solution.
From the HTP-1 webpage, the Dolby® ATMOS options promised are
"9.1.6 (add wide channels, and upper front and rear) 7.3.6 (3 subwoofers instead of wide channels) 7.5.4 (5 subwoofers, only 4 upper)"
|
|
|
Post by jagman on Sept 18, 2019 17:48:55 GMT -5
T hey were talking about the expansion modules - Geesh, can't anyone read anymore? Lonnie's comment could be taken either way, i.e. just applying to expansion modules or more broadly to all RMC-1 outputs. The broader interpretation makes sense from an engineering perspective because despite Keith's comment that "the software would have to be entirely(?) re-written", it would have to be really badly written for that to be the case, (emphasis and question mark on the word "entirely" is mine because this seems to be a rather hyperbolic comment).
As far as the software is concerned any output should be trivially map-able to any virtual model for speaker and sub-woofer layouts. However there is no real point in doing this just to move outputs around. What matters is if additional functionality is also supported/planned for, whether the DSP engines have the processing capacity for extra processing and whether there is commercial justification for such extra functionality, such as extra sub-channels in the base 16-channels (more mainstream) or using multiple channels per speaker for active speakers as Bolle wishes (more of an edge case with likely a limited commercial market).
So more importantly, the relevance for existing and future RMC-1 owners is that the Monoprice Monolith HTP-1 is promising this level of flexibility in 16-channels, specifically wrt to numbers of subwoofers supported versus wides or extra ceiling speakers. The HTP-1 is also promising the new Dirac Bass Management, which could be a quite persuasive offering for a 7.4.4 solution.
From the HTP-1 webpage, the Dolby® ATMOS options promised are
"9.1.6 (add wide channels, and upper front and rear) 7.3.6 (3 subwoofers instead of wide channels) 7.5.4 (5 subwoofers, only 4 upper)"
I could be wrong but I get the impression Emotiva took a shortcut when coding the RMC-1 not thinking the upmixer restrictions would be relaxed. That may be why they've had so many bugs to sort out. Now that the restrictions have been lifted they are in a really bad position. I hope I'm wrong but my instincts are usually pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Sept 18, 2019 18:55:08 GMT -5
T hey were talking about the expansion modules - Geesh, can't anyone read anymore? Lonnie's comment could be taken either way, i.e. just applying to expansion modules or more broadly to all RMC-1 outputs. The broader interpretation makes sense from an engineering perspective because despite Keith's comment that "the software would have to be entirely(?) re-written", it would have to be really badly written for that to be the case, (emphasis and question mark on the word "entirely" is mine because this seems to be a rather hyperbolic comment).
As far as the software is concerned any output should be trivially map-able to any virtual model for speaker and sub-woofer layouts. However there is no real point in doing this just to move outputs around. What matters is if additional functionality is also supported/planned for, whether the DSP engines have the processing capacity for extra processing and whether there is commercial justification for such extra functionality, such as extra sub-channels in the base 16-channels (more mainstream) or using multiple channels per speaker for active speakers as Bolle wishes (more of an edge case with likely a limited commercial market).
So more importantly, the relevance for existing and future RMC-1 owners is that the Monoprice Monolith HTP-1 is promising this level of flexibility in 16-channels, specifically wrt to numbers of subwoofers supported versus wides or extra ceiling speakers. The HTP-1 is also promising the new Dirac Bass Management, which could be a quite persuasive offering for a 7.4.4 solution. From the HTP-1 webpage, the Dolby® ATMOS options promised are
"9.1.6 (add wide channels, and upper front and rear) 7.3.6 (3 subwoofers instead of wide channels) 7.5.4 (5 subwoofers, only 4 upper)"
Just look at the rear panel of the RMC-1 and you will see that the speakers they serve are predetermined. So, they were talking about the expansion modules. This product is a preamp and the line level outputs can go to either amps or powered speakers - your choice! The Monoprice product is still a vapor product and it is not expandable.
|
|
|
Post by overtheair on Sept 18, 2019 19:28:01 GMT -5
Lonnie's comment could be taken either way, i.e. just applying to expansion modules or more broadly to all RMC-1 outputs. The broader interpretation makes sense from an engineering perspective because despite Keith's comment that "the software would have to be entirely(?) re-written", it would have to be really badly written for that to be the case, (emphasis and question mark on the word "entirely" is mine because this seems to be a rather hyperbolic comment).
As far as the software is concerned any output should be trivially map-able to any virtual model for speaker and sub-woofer layouts. However there is no real point in doing this just to move outputs around. What matters is if additional functionality is also supported/planned for, whether the DSP engines have the processing capacity for extra processing and whether there is commercial justification for such extra functionality, such as extra sub-channels in the base 16-channels (more mainstream) or using multiple channels per speaker for active speakers as Bolle wishes (more of an edge case with likely a limited commercial market).
So more importantly, the relevance for existing and future RMC-1 owners is that the Monoprice Monolith HTP-1 is promising this level of flexibility in 16-channels, specifically wrt to numbers of subwoofers supported versus wides or extra ceiling speakers. The HTP-1 is also promising the new Dirac Bass Management, which could be a quite persuasive offering for a 7.4.4 solution. From the HTP-1 webpage, the Dolby® ATMOS options promised are
"9.1.6 (add wide channels, and upper front and rear) 7.3.6 (3 subwoofers instead of wide channels) 7.5.4 (5 subwoofers, only 4 upper)"
Just look at the rear panel of the RMC-1 and you will see that the speakers they serve are predetermined. So, they were talking about the expansion modules. This product is a preamp and the line level outputs can go to either amps or powered speakers - your choice! The Monoprice product is still a vapor product and it is not expandable. The panel is just labeling and if you are not going to make reassignment a customer option then you label for fixed/identifiable channels for customer ease of use. The paths however are identical as Keith said, so the order could be changed and the software should enable easy reassignment. But as I pointed out, you wouldn't make the outputs re-assignable for users without some compelling business case. The HTP-1 is making reassignment a feature in order to support a variety of options within the available 16-channels.
Sure the HTP-1 has to deliver on a whole bunch of features and performance (and we know from Emotiva experience that's not a given). But HTP-1 is a potential competitor to the RMC-1, if someone is only looking at RMC-1 for the sub module option. Its definitely a potential competitor to RMC-1L and possibly might even attract buyers over XMC-2 for those wanting 7.2.6 and 7.4.4 with Dirac Bass Management, albeit at a significant increase in cost. All reasons why Emotiva supporting reassigning of outputs might be a smart thing to consider once they have the base system with Dirac fully sorted.
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Sept 18, 2019 19:38:33 GMT -5
Do you have some association with Monoprice?
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Sept 18, 2019 21:17:51 GMT -5
All reasons why Emotiva supporting reassigning of outputs might be a smart thing to consider once they have the base system with Dirac fully sorted. Pretty sure lack of reassigning outputs isn't going to be the deal-breaker for people deciding on an Emo processor. Just puttin' it out there, but you probably should dial down the drama a tad.
|
|
|
Post by overtheair on Sept 18, 2019 23:20:14 GMT -5
Do you have some association with Monoprice? No, but you certainly seem happy to cast aspersions. Playing the man rather than the ball it seems. I am simply pointing out a rational for why Emotiva might want to consider what was proposed by providing an example, rather than some abstract proposal with no grounding.
|
|
|
Post by overtheair on Sept 18, 2019 23:37:46 GMT -5
All reasons why Emotiva supporting reassigning of outputs might be a smart thing to consider once they have the base system with Dirac fully sorted. Pretty sure lack of reassigning outputs isn't going to be the deal-breaker for people deciding on an Emo processor. Just puttin' it out there, but you probably should dial down the drama a tad. I'm not seeing the drama. I provided an example behind why the ability to reassign outputs might be constructive, rather than just request a capability in the abstract. I used the words "might" and "consider", no demand, no insistence, no exaggeration of dire futures if they don't. I want to see Emotiva be successful with this new platform. But I will back out of this owners thread to avoid further diversion from what is currently out in the field.
|
|
|
Post by petew on Sept 19, 2019 6:10:55 GMT -5
Do you have some association with Monoprice? Another one added to my "blocked user ahole list"
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Sept 19, 2019 6:17:17 GMT -5
I think his review is pretty fair. I think some of his issues were using older firmware as he stated in the review. For instance with 1.5 I get the delay in John Wick 3 that he was talking about, but its only about 3-5 seconds maybe. Not the 26 seconds he mentioned. Mostly everything else he said was very fair. The unit does sound great, but it still has some minor quirks. At his point my biggest need is Dirac and also I think there may be an issues with DTS Neutral X based on other reports here. Yes he makes good points on the functionality of the unit [ It should report atmos on the output oled not truehd as that is what the metadata is decoding for instance] and nicely comprehensive . As he said though he is running currently a 1.6 beta version so the issues are tied to this otherwise they would have been dealt with and moot points . Its possible too his unit isn't the best and/or his equipment doesn't meld well as I noted that "Sparechange" who also is doing reviews on it said ; On the flexibility of channel assignment ; I read the new Arcam AV40 has 4 assignable outputs so its not just the $$ models with their complete assignability that's difficult ; even I wouldn't mind a lesser derivation for assigning wides and subs say[shouldn't be 1/2 as hard he said hopefully ] ..
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Sept 19, 2019 7:00:44 GMT -5
I'm not seeing the drama. I provided an example behind why the ability to reassign outputs might be constructive, rather than just request a capability in the abstract. I used the words "might" and "consider", no demand, no insistence, no exaggeration of dire futures if they don't. I want to see Emotiva be successful with this new platform. But I will back out of this owners thread to avoid further diversion from what is currently out in the field. Fair enough, but you wrote 2 lengthy paragraphs solely on something as esoteric/trivial as logical vs. dedicated output "naming". While some may desire it, it is quite far down the "differentiation" list. The RMC has too many other shortcomings that need to be addressed waaaaay before assignable outputs. A good place for it is to add it to the future RMC feature request thread.
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Sept 19, 2019 7:02:41 GMT -5
Look, the choice between wides vs heights or tops exist on every 13 or 16 channel prepro that I know (yeh, yeh except Trinnov) , including the RMC-1. The choice on extra subs vs wides is also common. Labels may be different but the function is the same. Now when you go beyond 16 channels the assignments will be tricky unless some type of auto location of speaker positions is utilized (yeh, yeh, Trinnov has this). Then it won't matter which terminal you connect to, the speaker set up routine will set that speaker up correctly. Either that or someone is going to have to come up with some creative descriptive names for some of these possible weird speaker locations. Emotiva, how are you going to do this for 24 or is it 28 speakers? Disclaimer: Please note, this '*bleep*' does not own an RMC-1 yet.
|
|
hi
Minor Hero
Posts: 48
|
Post by hi on Sept 19, 2019 9:56:52 GMT -5
Look, the choice between wides vs heights or tops exist on every 13 or 16 channel prepro that I know (yeh, yeh except Trinnov) , including the RMC-1. The choice on extra subs vs wides is also common. Labels may be different but the function is the same. Now when you go beyond 16 channels the assignments will be tricky unless some type of auto location of speaker positions is utilized (yeh, yeh, Trinnov has this). Then it won't matter which terminal you connect to, the speaker set up routine will set that speaker up correctly. Either that or someone is going to have to come up with some creative descriptive names for some of these possible weird speaker locations. Emotiva, how are you going to do this for 24 or is it 28 speakers? Disclaimer: Please note, this '*bleep*' does not own an RMC-1 yet. Interested in this as well. In object based audio setups it would make sense, that every speaker has a number and three coordinates (or 2 angle and one distance) Examble: Speaker12 x=1.33m y=2.64m z=4.72m. Speaker12 r=3m polar=15° azimut=18° At the moment almost every processor has pre set angles for speaker positions and only the distance can be modified. Btw: @mgbuff the choice "extra subs vs wides" is actually "heigt vs extra subs" for rmc1 which is disappointing because for alignment and eq of the subs an external dsp must be used, even the rmc has enough outputs. This is also why the assignment discussion was started.
|
|