|
Post by PaulBe on Feb 20, 2020 14:34:37 GMT -5
Cross upmixing is NOT on my priority list. Decoding material that has been encoded in another format is not a feature. In fact, it's not decoding at all. How much DTS:X Pro material is out there? 1. The restriction to selecting upmixing should be removed because no competitor is doing this and it should not be difficult. 2. DTS:Pro - perhaps after Dirac. - Rich Being able to easily offer ways to create distortion, because everyone else is doing it, is not a good reason to have cross upmixing.
|
|
|
Post by TDifEQ on Feb 20, 2020 14:36:41 GMT -5
I want to make that decision, not EMO.
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Feb 20, 2020 14:39:06 GMT -5
I want to make that decision, not EMO. Then make your own processor. I want features that make the processor work better, not worse.
|
|
richb
Sensei
Oppo Beta Group - Audioholics Reviewer
Posts: 859
|
Post by richb on Feb 20, 2020 14:40:39 GMT -5
1. The restriction to selecting upmixing should be removed because no competitor is doing this and it should not be difficult. 2. DTS:Pro - perhaps after Dirac. - Rich Being able to easily offer ways to create distortion is not a good reason to have cross upmixing. The prohibition from cross-mixing to the Dolby up-mixer was a restriction Dolby removed. No competing product has this restriction and it makes Emotiva less attractive. Up-mixing is not distortion, but if you feel that way don't use it. Needlessly preserving this legacy restriction is bad for business. - Rich
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Feb 20, 2020 14:45:26 GMT -5
Being able to easily offer ways to create distortion is not a good reason to have cross upmixing. The prohibition from cross-mixing to the Dolby up-mixer was a restriction Dolby removed. No competing product has this restriction and it makes Emotiva less attractive. Up-mixing is not distortion, but if you feel that way don't use it. Needlessly preserving this legacy restriction is bad for business. - Rich Decoding material in a format not consistent with the encoding IS distortion. Needlessly preserving this legacy is bad for sound reproduction.
|
|
hi
Minor Hero
Posts: 48
|
Post by hi on Feb 20, 2020 14:55:59 GMT -5
Paulbe, Distortion is defined as "unwanted falsification of a signal" so if you want to upmix, it's not unwanted ergo no distortion. Please do not tell other people what they have to want or not thx. The prohibition from cross-mixing to the Dolby up-mixer was a restriction Dolby removed. No competing product has this restriction and it makes Emotiva less attractive. Up-mixing is not distortion, but if you feel that way don't use it. Needlessly preserving this legacy restriction is bad for business. - Rich Decoding material in a format not consistent with the encoding IS distortion. Needlessly preserving this legacy is bad for sound reproduction.
|
|
richb
Sensei
Oppo Beta Group - Audioholics Reviewer
Posts: 859
|
Post by richb on Feb 20, 2020 15:07:56 GMT -5
The prohibition from cross-mixing to the Dolby up-mixer was a restriction Dolby removed. No competing product has this restriction and it makes Emotiva less attractive. Up-mixing is not distortion, but if you feel that way don't use it. Needlessly preserving this legacy restriction is bad for business. - Rich Decoding material in a format not consistent with the encoding IS distortion. Needlessly preserving this legacy is bad for sound reproduction. All up-mixing is not consistent with the original recording. PEQ/REQ alters the signal, this is not considered distortion. "Needlessly preserving this legacy is bad for sound reproduction." Either something is lost in translation or we are having a Monty Python argument that I didn't pay for youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ- Rich
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Feb 20, 2020 15:14:11 GMT -5
Paulbe, Distortion is defined as "unwanted falsification of a signal" so if you want to upmix, it's not unwanted ergo no distortion. Please do not tell other people what they have to want or not thx. Decoding material in a format not consistent with the encoding IS distortion. Needlessly preserving this legacy is bad for sound reproduction. Distortion doesn't have to be unwanted. Either way, it's still distortion. If you want to upmix, upmix. Cross upmixing is NOT on my priority list. Decoding material that has been encoded in another format is not a feature. In fact, it's not decoding at all. At best, it could be an interesting effect. It's not going to improve reproduction. Cross upmixing is not a simple tone control. It's not reverb added to vocals on a singers voice during production. I'm telling what I want. Cross upmixing, from Dolby to DTS, or visa versa, is NOT on my priority list. There a few real problems to address.
|
|
|
Post by frenchyfranky on Feb 20, 2020 15:33:22 GMT -5
Rumors are great fun.... We are still finalizing the details of how the Dirac functionality will be integrated into our code. (There will be multiple Dirac presets... but exactly how many, and how they will appear in the menu, has not been finalized yet.)
Will this also go with the german distributor md-sound? Do I have to contact them, or will it be something global (as with the NAD)?
I haven't registered mine, or can't remember.
really wish to get the RMC-1 back to normal, and then Dirac is planned. Will there be a specific information? We had here lots of rumours about how many memory slots we will get on the RMC-1 to store Dirac. Are these then additional to the 2 existing Speaker 1 and Speaker 2? thanks in advance.
Will the XMC-2 also have this feature?
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,966
Member is Online
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 20, 2020 15:36:40 GMT -5
Strictly speaking there is a difference between adding EQ in an attempt to correct an error and produce a result that is closer to the original... And adding EQ "to make it sound different because you prefer it that way"... Likewise, there is a difference between "decoding an encoded surround sound recording"... And "synthesizing surround sound from a stereo source"... Or "decoding a surround sound track and then synthesizing extra channels".
I personally prefer to listen to music in its original format... whether that happens to be Dolby Atmos... or Dolby 5.1 or 7.1 channel surround... or just plain stereo... or even mono.
However, it's your music, and your ears, and you are certainly entitled to do so if you like it better that way (and that is what "upmixers" are for)
Let's not split semantic hairs between "decoding" and "synthesizing"... (That parrot is not dead... he's just resting... .)
Decoding material in a format not consistent with the encoding IS distortion. Needlessly preserving this legacy is bad for sound reproduction. All up-mixing is not consistent with the original recording. PEQ/REQ alters the signal, this is not considered distortion. "Needlessly preserving this legacy is bad for sound reproduction." Either something is lost in translation or we are having a Monty Python argument that I didn't pay for youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ- Rich
|
|
hi
Minor Hero
Posts: 48
|
Post by hi on Feb 20, 2020 15:42:35 GMT -5
Keith, can you tell us some news about the 1.8 firmware? Are the bugs you mentioned tracked down?
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,966
Member is Online
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 20, 2020 15:50:12 GMT -5
We are planning to remove this restriction... It's just a little further down the priority list... but we will get to it...
Whether products have the restriction is simply a matter of timing... There was originally no restriction... Then Dolby added it... Then they removed it again... At the time our new processors were designed it was a requirement...
It's no big deal... but it is a little easier to remove it on older products where it wasn't there to begin with.
Being able to easily offer ways to create distortion is not a good reason to have cross upmixing. The prohibition from cross-mixing to the Dolby up-mixer was a restriction Dolby removed. No competing product has this restriction and it makes Emotiva less attractive. Up-mixing is not distortion, but if you feel that way don't use it. Needlessly preserving this legacy restriction is bad for business. - Rich
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Feb 20, 2020 16:14:27 GMT -5
Strictly speaking there is a difference between adding EQ in an attempt to correct an error and produce a result that is closer to the original... And adding EQ "to make it sound different because you prefer it that way"... Likewise, there is a difference between "decoding an encoded surround sound recording"... And "synthesizing surround sound from a stereo source"... Or "decoding a surround sound track and then synthesizing extra channels".
I personally prefer to listen to music in its original format... whether that happens to be Dolby Atmos... or Dolby 5.1 or 7.1 channel surround... or just plain stereo... or even mono.
However, it's your music, and your ears, and you are certainly entitled to do so if you like it better that way (and that is what "upmixers" are for)
Let's not split semantic hairs between "decoding" and "synthesizing"... (That parrot is not dead... he's just resting... .)
All up-mixing is not consistent with the original recording. PEQ/REQ alters the signal, this is not considered distortion. "Needlessly preserving this legacy is bad for sound reproduction." Either something is lost in translation or we are having a Monty Python argument that I didn't pay for youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ- Rich Please forgive me as I digress. Perhaps it’s the side that I stand on. But, "decoding" and "synthesizing" are not semantic hairs to split. People can like whatever sonic and visual flavors suit them, however it’s easy to make porridge out of an artist’s intent. If all I want is another flavor, I don’t have any need for a cinema processor. I could add any number of speakers in a room, in any fashion I want, driven all from one channel… oh wait… this is beginning to ‘sound’ like DTS Neural upmixing on a budget. Muzak for everyone. Squawk, squawk, squawk…
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Feb 21, 2020 5:54:02 GMT -5
Don't see the issue here between straight decoding and up mixing; Yamaha should have seen this coming . Strictly speaking the artists intent is encoded and decoded as say dolby truehd or dts hdma full stop . If the dolbytruehd is upmixed with either DSU or DTS neural either one is following the logic - to coin a phrase a "distortion" of the artists intent so going by this its moot which upmixer is used .. And I don't really consider the sophisticated algorithms of DSU 'distortion'' . Thankfully luminaries like Jim Fosgate started this all which led to the well loved logic 7 and now its logic 16 derivatives ; a nice read on pl2; www.stereophile.com/interviews/1204fosgate/index.htmlSo ide rather have the choice like most here and considering the likelihood of getting auromax upmixing [no loss] some choice is needed to satisfy all And not to mention the 11ch limitation on dts neural which prompts the need for dts-x pro to utilise all the speakers if wished
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Feb 21, 2020 8:35:48 GMT -5
Don't see the issue here between straight decoding and up mixing; Yamaha should have seen this coming . Strictly speaking the artists intent is encoded and decoded as say dolby truehd or dts hdma full stop . If the dolbytruehd is upmixed with either DSU or DTS neural either one is following the logic - to coin a phrase a "distortion" of the artists intent so going by this its moot which upmixer is used .. And I don't really consider the sophisticated algorithms of DSU 'distortion'' . Thankfully luminaries like Jim Fosgate started this all which led to the well loved logic 7 and now its logic 16 derivatives ; a nice read on pl2; www.stereophile.com/interviews/1204fosgate/index.htmlSo ide rather have the choice like most here and considering the likelihood of getting auromax upmixing [no loss] some choice is needed to satisfy all And not to mention the 11ch limitation on dts neural which prompts the need for dts-x pro to utilise all the speakers if wished I'm going to state one more thing, then put my part in this to bed. This is where I started my rant: emotivalounge.proboards.com/post/1021284/threadThe 'issue' got off track. It's about priorities to me. To use an analogy, I don't care if there is chrome trim around the wheel wells of my car if the engine shuts down on 10% of my trips. To give an example from yesterday, I was listening to a new SACD I bought. I was changing from the CD layer, to the SACD stereo layer, to the 4 channel SACD layer. I had to make temporary changes to both the oppo205, and the RMC-1L to do an effective test; changing SACD player priorities, and RMC mode priorities. The Rmc-1L stopped delivering sound in the middle of the test, and all the switching. The RMC was also changing Speaker Presets when I made other changes. I had to reboot to continue. The RMC doesn't like making a lot of changes. Since I don't use many sources, this kind of problem has little effect on my normal use of the processor. But it does for some, and this is the kind of problem that needs to be fixed first. Engine first. Chrome trim second. Oh. Like Colombo, just one more thing: The way most people use upmixing, is no different than adding a spring reverb to the output of the car radio in my dad's 57 chevy; despite the visionary work on sophisticated algorithms by the luminaries. This is my opinion. It can be fun. The added 'distortion' can be coherent or incoherent. It works on some recordings and not others. We have choices... My Logic 7 on an old receiver was used for about an hour. It gave me a chuckle. Deciding it had little value was my choice. The receiver didn't force me to use it. If I only had that 57 Chevy... in baby blue and white. Those colors knock off 2 tenths in the quarter mile time. Vroom Vroom!
|
|
Lonnie
Emo Staff
admin
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
Posts: 6,999
|
Post by Lonnie on Feb 21, 2020 12:58:06 GMT -5
Quick update.
1.8 is in the hands of the beta testers and I'm thrilled to say that the feedback has been very positive.
I'm reluctant to release it on a Friday for no other reason then I would like the beta guys to have a few more days with it. But I plan on cutting it loose on Monday.
Thanks you all for your patience and feedback.
Lonnie
|
|
|
Post by steelman1991 on Feb 21, 2020 13:04:51 GMT -5
Quick update. 1.8 is in the hands of the beta testers and I'm thrilled to say that the feedback has been very positive. I'm reluctant to release it on a Friday for no other reason then I would like the beta guys to have a few more days with it. But I plan on cutting it loose on Monday. Thanks you all for your patience and feedback. Lonnie Great news Lonnie - hope all goes well on release. Can't wait to test drive it.
|
|
|
Post by TDifEQ on Feb 21, 2020 13:10:37 GMT -5
Take as much time as you need ... another week or so is fine, too. 1.8 will be judged as the stability release ... preceeding the Dirac release. Thx.
|
|
timg
Minor Hero
Posts: 68
|
Post by timg on Feb 21, 2020 13:33:53 GMT -5
Are there any sound quality improvements in 1.8, or is it primarily bug fixes?
Tim
|
|
|
Post by shellcode1 on Feb 21, 2020 13:38:11 GMT -5
Quick update. 1.8 is in the hands of the beta testers and I'm thrilled to say that the feedback has been very positive. I'm reluctant to release it on a Friday for no other reason then I would like the beta guys to have a few more days with it. But I plan on cutting it loose on Monday. Thanks you all for your patience and feedback. Lonnie Hi Lonnie, Is it possible to get a list of improvements in that release so I can have something to call into work about ?
|
|