|
|
Post by overtheair on Jan 14, 2019 18:49:09 GMT -5
Even though the XMC-1 product itself is no longer being sold, it will still be supported for a long time to come. The XMC-1 shares the same architecture as the RMC-1, RMC-1L, XMC-2, and future processor models. We have spent millions and years developing our own platform so we can support all of this. I understood that the architecture actually isn´t the same due to the change from TI to Griffin Lite for the DSPs and therefore needing a different programming language? I suspect what Nick meant is that the Atmos platform upgrade for XMC-1 will be using the same platform as RMC-1, RMC-1L, XMC-2. In other words those customers upgrading an XMC-1 will have the TI based board replaced by an ADI Griffin Lite based board. I speculate that there may not be major feature upgrades to software for TI based XMC-1, so that Emotiva engineers can focus all their efforts on a single hardware platform. This might mean for example that Dirac Live 2.0 will only be available on the ADI platform and not the TI legacy platform. Assuming legacy XMC-1 gets HDMI 2.1 then there might be minor upgrades to other software in the system to support the board though. |
|
|
|
Post by motogp34 on Jan 14, 2019 18:52:40 GMT -5
So is the RMC-2 the replacement for the XMC-1 ??
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Jan 14, 2019 18:55:06 GMT -5
So is the RMC-2 the replacement for the XMC-1 ?? No. There will be an XMC-2 to replace the XMC-1. The RMC-2 (now officially called the RMC-1L) is basically and RMC-1 with no expansion modules. Check for the newest threads and you will find recent threads on both items along with pictures. |
|
|
|
Post by overtheair on Jan 14, 2019 18:55:30 GMT -5
XMC-2 is the replacement for XMC-1. RMC-1L (previously aka RMC-2) will be an advanced unit between XMC-2 and RMC-1. There are other threads that discuss this.
Edit: Ninja'd!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Jan 14, 2019 18:56:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jcam2881 on Jan 14, 2019 20:06:37 GMT -5
So is the RMC-2 the replacement for the XMC-1 ?? No. There will be an XMC-2 to replace the XMC-1. The RMC-2 (now officially called the RMC-1L) is basically and RMC-1 with no expansion modules. Check for the newest threads and you will find recent threads on both items along with pictures. Have to add that emo , Dan and his team have tackled passionately things that they and rest of the hifi geeks want! So totally amazing job.. running a biz and doing this with massive headwinds is awesome. Respect totally earned. Love the amp/s that I have/had. Has to be crazy to read some of the negatives given all the hours spent trying to build hardaware and software... and keep up with dumb industry standards. I want to be a buyer of a new emo receiver , just don’t want to spend /invest more than setup time on it. I want to watch movies at volume shake the walls and listen to music with the subtle nuances and smile on my face. With no Wife or frustrations that it bugged out and I need to go to the server room to do a hard reset. Give me a stable platform and I’ll bite, otherwise the benefits aren’t there. What other than passion could the business case be? I am not sure how many people actually are buyers of a 5-7k receiver from a small company? What’s the ROE? |
|
|
|
Post by overtheair on Jan 14, 2019 21:49:58 GMT -5
What other than passion could the business case be? I am not sure how many people actually are buyers of a 5-7k receiver from a small company? What’s the ROE?] The ROE is a single hardware platform that can scale from the high end all the way down to an entry level pre-pro. By entry level I am not referring to XMC-2, I am referring to a pre-pro at a lower price point in the $1K to $1.5K range which seems a very likely product to me. I haven't see anything in the circuit boards that couldn't support such a price point, especially with some cost reduction on the DAC board. But clearly it will need to be a product with minimal product problems to minimize support costs and maintain margins. Software development costs for the ADI Griffin Lite platform, which are certainly not likely to be trivial as suggested by Hair Nick's earlier comments and the extremely long RMC-1 gestation time, are a sunk cost once the RMC-1 base unit is fully functional. So products with lower capabilities will just offer the same or a subset of the software features of the flagship halo product, based on what price points/feature differentiation makes sense to Emotiva in the market. The higher volumes of the lower price units with no additional software development is the ROI/ROE. Not to mention possible licensing deals for the platform to other companies.
To anticipate future comments. I notice in the past some have assumed that the cost of components is setting the high end pricing for RMC-1 and RMC-1L, i.e. a cost plus pricing model. Or to put it another way they try to determine what is driving the higher cost of say an RMC-1L or RMC-1 versus an XMC-2 and then argue about what could be removed to reduce market price. The short answer is that price is based on what customers will pay, i.e. the market value of a product. That's based on product features/benefits versus other alternatives from Emotiva and from its competitors and not product cost at those levels. After all a Trinnov is based on an Intel PC motherboard but it surely isn't being priced like a PC, starting at ~$16K with higher functional units approaching $40K.  |
|
|
|
Post by jeffinmonterey on Jan 15, 2019 3:40:36 GMT -5
Thanks for the link to Big Dan Laufman's interview at the CES. What I am really looking for is an Emo unit that is not so expensive and loaded with channels and features, say in the $1500 (max) range. I have an un-used LPA1 that I would like to hook up again.
|
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Jan 15, 2019 5:56:47 GMT -5
Software development costs for the ADI Griffin Lite platform, which are certainly not likely to be trivial as suggested by Hair Nick's earlier comments and the extremely long RMC-1 gestation time, are a sunk cost once the RMC-1 base unit is fully functional. So products with lower capabilities will just offer the same or a subset of the software features of the flagship halo product, based on what price points/feature differentiation makes sense to Emotiva in the market. The higher volumes of the lower price units with no additional software development is the ROI/ROE. Not to mention possible licensing deals for the platform to other companies. Nice oversight of Emo's plans overtheair ; which indeed melds with Dans comments of other pre pro price points down to 1k at CES .Logical to lose items like 2ch dual differential balanced circuitry as that is the lower standard of the opposition and what the market places less emphasis on .. I feel an Emersa emp1 equivalent with atmos is back on the table again possibly... |
|
|
|
Post by Hair Nick on Jan 15, 2019 10:55:58 GMT -5
What other than passion could the business case be? I am not sure how many people actually are buyers of a 5-7k receiver from a small company? What’s the ROE?] The ROE is a single hardware platform that can scale from the high end all the way down to an entry level pre-pro. By entry level I am not referring to XMC-2, I am referring to a pre-pro at a lower price point in the $1K to $1.5K range which seems a very likely product to me. I haven't see anything in the circuit boards that couldn't support such a price point, especially with some cost reduction on the DAC board. But clearly it will need to be a product with minimal product problems to minimize support costs and maintain margins. Software development costs for the ADI Griffin Lite platform, which are certainly not likely to be trivial as suggested by Hair Nick's earlier comments and the extremely long RMC-1 gestation time, are a sunk cost once the RMC-1 base unit is fully functional. So products with lower capabilities will just offer the same or a subset of the software features of the flagship halo product, based on what price points/feature differentiation makes sense to Emotiva in the market. The higher volumes of the lower price units with no additional software development is the ROI/ROE. Not to mention possible licensing deals for the platform to other companies.
To anticipate future comments. I notice in the past some have assumed that the cost of components is setting the high end pricing for RMC-1 and RMC-1L, i.e. a cost plus pricing model. Or to put it another way they try to determine what is driving the higher cost of say an RMC-1L or RMC-1 versus an XMC-2 and then argue about what could be removed to reduce market price. The short answer is that price is based on what customers will pay, i.e. the market value of a product. That's based on product features/benefits versus other alternatives from Emotiva and from its competitors and not product cost at those levels. After all a Trinnov is based on an Intel PC motherboard but it surely isn't being priced like a PC, starting at ~$16K with higher functional units approaching $40K.  |
|
|
|
Post by cjcody on Jan 18, 2019 23:30:05 GMT -5
I have a email from Dan Laufman that says quote " We are actively working on the new Atmos enabled dsp module for the xmc-1. Now that that the dsp coding for the rmc-1 is complete it allows us to finnish work on this upgrade option for the xmc-1. Please know that we are working very hard to complete this project for you and the many thousands of xmc-1 owners out there. We will ne announcing formal release dates for this upgrade in the new year. Please know that it will be sooner than later. Thanks for your patience and understanding. Regards, Dan "
|
|
|
|
Post by musicfan on Jan 19, 2019 9:47:17 GMT -5
FYI. It’s been close to 3 years since they said the xmc-1 would get the upgrade board
Don’t plan on getting it anytime soon
|
|
|
|
Post by transchris1 on Jan 19, 2019 9:56:42 GMT -5
I can understand some type of delay or whatever... what I don't understand is how can Emotiva build another processor,sell out of it,build more and can't have the Atmos board for the existing xmc1's...I would love an explanation!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by thrillcat on Jan 19, 2019 10:12:29 GMT -5
I can understand some type of delay or whatever... what I don't understand is how can Emotiva build another processor,sell out of it,build more and can't have the Atmos board for the existing xmc1's...I would love an explanation!!! Because the upgrade board is the direct result of that new processor and the R&D going into it. The XMC-1 was never intended to do Atmos. That was a “gift” post-release, when they decided to look into using the Atmos board from the RMC-1 and making it work in the XMC-1. It’s completely acceptable that they work on fixing the issues with their Atmos processor BEFORE working on wedging an Atmos board into a processor that was never designed to be an Atmos processor. |
|
|
|
Post by musicfan on Jan 19, 2019 10:34:10 GMT -5
I can understand some type of delay or whatever... what I don't understand is how can Emotiva build another processor,sell out of it,build more and can't have the Atmos board for the existing xmc1's...I would love an explanation!!! Because the upgrade board is the direct result of that new processor and the R&D going into it. The XMC-1 was never intended to do Atmos. That was a “gift” post-release, when they decided to look into using the Atmos board from the RMC-1 and making it work in the XMC-1. It’s completely acceptable that they work on fixing the issues with their Atmos processor BEFORE working on wedging an Atmos board into a processor that was never designed to be an Atmos processor. This is inaccurate. The original plan was decided the xmc could do 5.2.2 before the rmc was even in the equation using the existing outputs on the xmc-1 It was only after development of the rmc-1 they realized they could use the board for both. So the xmc-1 will be able to do 7.2.4 with the shared board So yes the upgrade was put on the back burner to develop the rmc once they realized the big market they are missing out on |
|
|
|
Post by transchris1 on Jan 19, 2019 10:34:23 GMT -5
I can understand some type of delay or whatever... what I don't understand is how can Emotiva build another processor,sell out of it,build more and can't have the Atmos board for the existing xmc1's...I would love an explanation!!! Because the upgrade board is the direct result of that new processor and the R&D going into it. The XMC-1 was never intended to do Atmos. That was a “gift” post-release, when they decided to look into using the Atmos board from the RMC-1 and making it work in the XMC-1. It’s completely acceptable that they work on fixing the issues with their Atmos processor BEFORE working on wedging an Atmos board into a processor that was never designed to be an Atmos processor. Ok,that makes sense,,,thank you!! |
|
|
|
Post by musicfan on Jan 19, 2019 10:36:18 GMT -5
From April 22 2016 Hi all, Well, what a week this has been!! Last time we talked about the Atmos/DTS-X upgrade path for the XMC-1, it appeared to be limited to 5.2.2. But, Ray and Lonnie went back to the drawing board... and I have some great news!! The boys have figured out a way to add 5.2.4 and/or 7.2.2 capability to the XMC-1. In order to do this, we would re-purpose the the mix-down outputs on the XMC-1 and make them the second pair of height/surround channels. Now, they would be not be balanced, but hey, something's got to give. All in all, I think it's a very nice idea! I believe this is a great way to allow XMC-1 owners to get a really immersive 3D surround experience with no real downside. It is our belief that people rarely use the down-mix feature of the XMC-1. Agreed? So, let me hear from you, please. Does this change the equation for you?? Does this make it a more compelling add-on?? Are you happy?? Does this make you love us even more than before?? Thoughts?? Cheers, Big Dan |
|
|
|
Post by thrillcat on Jan 19, 2019 10:43:33 GMT -5
From April 22 2016 Hi all, Well, what a week this has been!! Last time we talked about the Atmos/DTS-X upgrade path for the XMC-1, it appeared to be limited to 5.2.2. But, Ray and Lonnie went back to the drawing board... and I have some great news!! The boys have figured out a way to add 5.2.4 and/or 7.2.2 capability to the XMC-1. In order to do this, we would re-purpose the the mix-down outputs on the XMC-1 and make them the second pair of height/surround channels. Now, they would be not be balanced, but hey, something's got to give. All in all, I think it's a very nice idea! I believe this is a great way to allow XMC-1 owners to get a really immersive 3D surround experience with no real downside. It is our belief that people rarely use the down-mix feature of the XMC-1. Agreed? So, let me hear from you, please. Does this change the equation for you?? Does this make it a more compelling add-on?? Are you happy?? Does this make you love us even more than before?? Thoughts?? Cheers, Big Dan And you don’t think the RMC-1 was in the equation in 2016? |
|
|
|
Post by musicfan on Jan 19, 2019 10:49:45 GMT -5
And you don’t think the RMC-1 was in the equation in 2016? It may have been. But your not getting the point You said the atmos in the xmc-1 was predicated on the rmc-1 board. Not accurate. The xmc-1 has had plans to have atmos with or without the rmc-1 bird development. So weather they had started the rmc-1 in 2016 (highly doubtful) has no bearing on the xmc-1 at that point |
|
|
|
Post by emofrmcgy on Jan 19, 2019 11:15:16 GMT -5
And you don’t think the RMC-1 was in the equation in 2016? It may have been. But your not getting the point You said the atmos in the xmc-1 was predicated on the rmc-1 board. Not accurate. The xmc-1 has had plans to have atmos with or without the rmc-1 bird development. So weather they had started the rmc-1 in 2016 (highly doubtful) has no bearing on the xmc-1 at that point They also originally planned to build all following processors on the xmc platform. But that has also changed. The xmc was NEVER supposed to have atmos. It was decided after the fact that it “could” be done after Emotiva was put through the wringer over it being an outdated product at release. I remember selling my xmc because when Dan said it wouldn’t happen and if you don’t like it buy something else... (among other things) No one thought it would take 5-6 years or more...from release for the atmos board to materialize. But it was 2 years after release that atmos was found “could” be implemented. |
|
