RMC-1 / RMC-1L / XMC-2 / XMC-1: Get Help Choosing 🙋‍♂️

[hsamwel]

I really miss a second balanced input in all three processors. I have two high end balanced playback units that benefits from being connected balanced. Pioneer N-70AE network streamer and Pioneer UDP-LX800 4k bluray player.
IMO they should have added a second XLR input in favour of two of the digital inputs. Who needs NINE digital inputs?!

So as it stands RMC-1 was the best option for me with its possible expansions.

I will probably buy a balanced in expansion card when it arrives.

I’m also interested in a streaming expansion if done correctly with very HQ sound. As I already own a great streamer which have just about every feature except being roon ready.
I tested to connect it digitally aswell as analog to RMC, it sounds MUCH better through analog in.
Problem is that the streamers don’t send streams (ex FLAC) directly to its digital outs. They do DA and probably AD again to then send LPCM out digitally.

[nospam]

Jul 25, 2019 6:56:45 GMT -5 hsamwel said:

Problem is that the streamers don’t send streams (ex FLAC) directly to its digital outs. They do DA and probably AD again to then send LPCM out digitally.

This is not accurate. The only DA conversion would for analog output. Conversion to PCM is done digitally.

[hsamwel]

Aug 16, 2019 2:11:10 GMT -5 nospam said:

Jul 25, 2019 6:56:45 GMT -5 hsamwel said:

Problem is that the streamers don’t send streams (ex FLAC) directly to its digital outs. They do DA and probably AD again to then send LPCM out digitally.

This is not accurate. The only DA conversion would for analog output. Conversion to PCM is done digitally.

Ok. Then my streamer is doing a hell of lot better job than RMC with the DAC part..

Because sending audio through coax digital sounds MUCH worse than  balanced in/analog in using Reference stereo.

[LCSeminole]

Now that the XMC-2 will be out in the wild presumably next week some time, do we already know if all of these processors will share the same firmware?

[AudioHTIT]

Aug 16, 2019 16:46:32 GMT -5 LCSeminole said:

Now that the XMC-2 will be out in the wild presumably next week some time, do we already know if all of these processors will share the same firmware?

I hope so, that would be a win—win for Emotiva and us.

[Gary Cook]

Aug 16, 2019 15:57:04 GMT -5 hsamwel said:

Aug 16, 2019 2:11:10 GMT -5 nospam said:

This is not accurate. The only DA conversion would for analog output. Conversion to PCM is done digitally.

Ok. Then my streamer is doing a hell of lot better job than RMC with the DAC part. Because sending audio through coax digital sounds MUCH worse than  balanced in/analog in using Reference stereo.

That doesn't prove anything about the RMC, it is entirely possible that the digital output on you streamer is the problem.
Or that whatever settings you are using for the digital input on your RMC is inferior to analogue in and Reference Stereo out.

If I might be so bold as to suggest that "better" sounding is subjective, what you find "better" many may well find "worse". "Different" is the more common term followed by "more to my liking". I have yet to find a modern DAC that sounds "better" but there are few that are "not to my liking". Mostly Sabre DAC's that many others find very appealing.

Cheers
Gary

[davidl81]

Aug 16, 2019 17:38:48 GMT -5 AudioHTIT said:

Aug 16, 2019 16:46:32 GMT -5 LCSeminole said:

Now that the XMC-2 will be out in the wild presumably next week some time, do we already know if all of these processors will share the same firmware?

I hope so, that would be a win—win for Emotiva and us.

I would think they are basically the same. They share all the same hardware with the exception of the surround channels are not in that mono-mode. And of course the screen has a different display. But the firmware should be 99% the same.

[Gary Cook]

Aug 16, 2019 19:03:36 GMT -5 davidl81 said:

Aug 16, 2019 17:38:48 GMT -5 AudioHTIT said:

I hope so, that would be a win—win for Emotiva and us.

I would think they are basically the same. They share all the same hardware with the exception of the surround channels are not in that mono-mode. And of course the screen has a different display. But the firmware should be 99% the same.

Since the RMC-1 has the difference in the DAC (mono mode) that to me means different firmware, even 0.1% is different.

Cheers
Gary

[AudioHTIT]

Aug 16, 2019 19:06:27 GMT -5 Gary Cook said:

Aug 16, 2019 19:03:36 GMT -5 davidl81 said:

I would think they are basically the same. They share all the same hardware with the exception of the surround channels are not in that mono-mode. And of course the screen has a different display. But the firmware should be 99% the same.

Since the RMC-1 has the difference in the DAC (mono mode) that to me means different firmware, even 0.1% is different.

Cheers
Gary

I would think it’s possible to have a single piece of code deal with both configurations, but we’ll find out very soon.

[jagman]

I have DIYSG HTM-12s for LCR and Concentric-8s for the other channels. I have four co-located 18" IB subs in an array up front and two arrays of nearfield subs. So my setup is essentially 9.3.6 (obviously there aren't three distinct sub channels). I also have three XPA-5 gen2 amps. If firmware 1.5 proves to be good I'm set to buy a processor and I have a 40% off card.

I'm considering getting the RMC-1, using my balanced MiniDSP 2x4 with the subs for now, then getting the subwoofer expansion module once available vs getting the XMC-2 and a MiniDSP 10x10 (it has a higher bit rate and better processing that the 2x4).

The RMC-1 might sound better if my amps and speakers are good enough to highlight the differences between the two Pre-Pros... and it is a more elegant setup. Plus it would allow me to add other modules if I want to add more channels later on. It also might have additional residual value since a potential second owner could do the same (at great savings compared to the competition).

The XMC-2 + 10x10 would still be damn good and having the 10x10 would easily allow adding MBM later if I choose to that route. Plus it would be quite a bit less expensive.

Am I missing anything? Do you guys think the better internals in the RMC-1 would be noticeable in my setup? I know Emotiva hasn't said it but does anyone think the RMC-1 might eventually get more involved updates (hardware or software) since the processing is a bit better? Do you think having DIRAC individually for each sub array would be noticeably better than using the MiniDSP to time align each sub and then using DIRAC to manage them collectively as a whole? Which way would you go?

[lrobertson]

Aug 17, 2019 10:07:21 GMT -5 jagman said:

I have DIYSG HTM-12s for LCR and Concentric-8s for the other channels. I have four co-located 18" IB subs in an array up front and two arrays of nearfield subs. So my setup is essentially 9.3.6 (obviously there aren't three distinct sub channels). I also have three XPA-5 gen2 amps. If firmware 1.5 proves to be good I'm set to buy a processor and I have a 40% off card.

I'm considering getting the RMC-1, using my balanced MiniDSP 2x4 with the subs for now, then getting the subwoofer expansion module once available vs getting the XMC-2 and a MiniDSP 10x10 (it has a higher bit rate and better processing that the 2x4).

The RMC-1 might sound better if my amps and speakers are good enough to highlight the differences between the two Pre-Pros... and it is a more elegant setup. Plus it would allow me to add other modules if I want to add more channels later on. It also might have additional residual value since a potential second owner could do the same (at great savings compared to the competition).

The XMC-2 + 10x10 would still be damn good and having the 10x10 would easily allow adding MBM later if I choose to that route. Plus it would be quite a bit less expensive.

Am I missing anything? Do you guys think the better internals in the RMC-1 would be noticeable in my setup? I know Emotiva hasn't said it but does anyone think the RMC-1 might eventually get more involved updates (hardware or software) since the processing is a bit better? Do you think having DIRAC individually for each sub array would be noticeably better than using the MiniDSP to time align each sub and then using DIRAC to manage them collectively as a whole? Which way would you go?

I’m basically doing the same thing but with the RMC-1. I have a ddrc-88bm (bm meaning with the bass managment upgrade) and that hopefully will allow me to externally have the same results as eating up 2 expansion bays. I doubt we ever get Unison but that might affect whether we can utilize external processing with multiple subs.

[AudioHTIT]

Aug 17, 2019 10:07:21 GMT -5 jagman said:

...
Am I missing anything? Do you guys think the better internals in the RMC-1 would be noticeable in my setup? I know Emotiva hasn't said it but does anyone think the RMC-1 might eventually get more involved updates (hardware or software) since the processing is a bit better? ...

Either way you go it sounds like it’ll be a nice system. As you say, the XMC-2 will be a good processor, and I think the sound difference between the XMC-2 and RMC-1 on the main/surround/height channels will be minimal, with your Mini-DSP expansion your subs should be well controlled. Then yes, the main argument for the RMC-1 with a system like yours would be the potential for the subwoofer expansion module, and multi-tiered Dirac (with some mono DAC gravy). Also with the 40% card you reduce the difference in cost between the two, though it’s still significant. The final points for the RMC are the dual displays, Tiffany connectors and size, which might push some (like me) over, but it’s more of an aesthetic decision.

Another thing to consider, if you have a 40 card, maybe you also have UFL? If in the future the RMC-1 looked really inviting with expansion and Dirac, you could probably sell your XMC-2 and use that money with UFL to get into the RMC-1 with little difference than you’d be paying now?

[jagman]

Aug 17, 2019 11:52:25 GMT -5 AudioHTIT said:

Aug 17, 2019 10:07:21 GMT -5 jagman said:

...
Am I missing anything? Do you guys think the better internals in the RMC-1 would be noticeable in my setup? I know Emotiva hasn't said it but does anyone think the RMC-1 might eventually get more involved updates (hardware or software) since the processing is a bit better? ...

Either way you go it sounds like it’ll be a nice system. As you say, the XMC-2 will be a good processor, and I think the sound difference between the XMC-2 and RMC-1 on the main/surround/height channels will be minimal, with your Mini-DSP expansion your subs should be well controlled. Then yes, the main argument for the RMC-1 with a system like yours would be the potential for the subwoofer expansion module, and multi-tiered Dirac (with some mono DAC gravy). Also with the 40% card you reduce the difference in cost between the two, though it’s still significant. The final points for the RMC are the dual displays, Tiffany connectors and size, which might push some (like me) over, but it’s more of an aesthetic decision.

Another thing to consider, if you have a 40 card, maybe you also have UFL? If in the future the RMC-1 looked really inviting with expansion and Dirac, you could probably sell your XMC-2 and use that money with UFL to get into the RMC-1 with little difference than you’d be paying now?

No UFL. I purchased the 40% off card about 1.5 years ago for $450. I suspect the extra 4 channel sub module will be quite nice. But all in the difference in cost will be about $1k.

[cwt]

Aug 17, 2019 10:07:21 GMT -5 jagman said:

Am I missing anything? Do you guys think the better internals in the RMC-1 would be noticeable in my setup? I know Emotiva hasn't said it but does anyone think the RMC-1 might eventually get more involved updates (hardware or software) since the processing is a bit better? Do you think having DIRAC individually for each sub array would be noticeably better than using the MiniDSP to time align each sub and then using DIRAC to manage them collectively as a whole? Which way would you go?

I would imagine using a minidsp rather than a built in expansion module would add extra adc/dac conversions ;so keeping it in the digital domain may appeal . Since we don't know what upgrades will apply via firmware for the different models its important to note that the RMC1 and XMC2 have identical dsp processing ;

All audio decoding and post processing is handled by twin Analog Devices, dual-core, 450 MHz DSP engines.

On the other hand its more likely the RMC1 will get the top tier of diracs sub module than the XMC2 as it has the sub expansion module that is I believe on the expansion modules actively being worked on atm Not to add its usual that the top of the line gets more attention with most ce's

If you envisage something like dirac unison turning up one day theres only 1 option ; It will be interesting which way you go - a hard choice

[newfrontier]

Now that the XMC-2 is offered for sale, when do you think an approximate time table will be offered for the introductory sale of the RMC-1L

[AudioHTIT]

Aug 18, 2019 9:50:04 GMT -5 newfrontier said:

Now that the XMC-2 is offered for sale, when do you think an approximate time table will be offered for the introductory sale of the RMC-1L

The last word we had was “within the next month”, which was using the release of the XMC-2 as reference.

[AudioHTIT]

Since the ‘fully balanced’ status of the new and existing processors has come up again, I’ve collected some information from various posts by Keith to have a reference in one place. I did some minor editing adding some headings, emphasis where important, and removed some information that didn’t fit out of context. I did not change any of his explanation. (If I find additional information about this I will add it to this post)
If you want the summaries, skip to the end.

* This information is specifically about the XMC-1

The balanced outputs on the XMC-1 are all fully balanced.
Each channel output on each DAC chip in the XMC-1 is itself balanced.
The signal path from the outputs of the individual DACs to the balanced output circuitry in the XMC-1 is NOT fully balanced.
[The signal paths for the front L/R channels are fully balanced but the other channels are not.]
(And, even though the entire signal path is not balanced, each DAC chip still benefits from the lower noise and distortion of a balanced DAC output.)

* This information is about the DAC chips in the newer models (XMC-2, RMC-1L, RMC-1)

The AKM DAC chip itself is capable of delivering either:
- two channels of fully balanced output (in "stereo mode")
- one channel of higher quality balanced output (in "mono mode")
However, the designer doesn't HAVE to take advantage of its balanced capabilities, so it can also be used as a stereo "unbalanced" DAC.
(You simply connect the "+" output for each channel, and leave the "-" output unconnected, which saves you several parts, and a few foil traces, per channel.)

I should also point out that we're talking about very small differences here....
For example, the S/N rating of the AK4490 DAC chip itself, is 120 dB in stereo mode, and 123 dB in mono mode.

To put that in perspective, the theoretical maximum S/N for a CD is 98 dB...
And, to put that in perspective, that is about the same as the difference between the noise floor in a quiet library and a jet aircraft at 50m.

* Balanced DACs and Balanced Outputs

I do realize that the terminology can get confusing....
And it's also true that some of the terminology itself is standardized but not all of it is.....

The digital audio signal itself that comes from the decoder or directly from the digital audio input is not balanced.
In digital audio systems that include DACs the "balanced" part of the circuitry begins at the analog output of the DAC.
Each channel of a "fully balanced DAC" has two analog outputs.
One delivers an "in-phase" or "+" analog output signal.
The other delivers an "out-of-phase" or "-" version of the same analog output signal.
This pair of signals together make up a single balanced analog output.
And, in a fully balanced system, they are passed on to a fully balanced analog stage, and on to the balanced output.

The DAC chips we use in the RMC-1, RMC-1L, and XMC-2 are FULLY BALANCED STEREO DAC CHIPS.
This means that each DAC chip has two of these fully balanced outputs.
(This is the way most modern DAC chips are designed.)
So each DAC chip has:
- a LEFT PLUS output
- a LEFT MINUS output
- a RIGHT PLUS output
- a RIGHT MINUS output

For each channel, the PLUS and MINUS outputs together comprise a fully balanced fully differential output.
On the surround channels of the XMC-2 each of these pairs of outputs goes to an XLR connector via a fully balanced signal path.
This means that each DAC chip handles two channels...
And each of those channels is a fully balanced fully differential output channel.

The DAC chips we use also have a special mode of operation which allows you to CROSS CONNECT ALL FOUR OUTPUTS ON THE CHIP TOGETHER INTO A SINGLE OUTPUT.
Instead of two channels, each with a fully balanced output, you have one channel, with a sort of "super duper balanced output".
This special output looks like a regular balanced output but has better performance than the output you get from a single set of balanced output channels (the biggest difference is a S/N that is about 6 dB better).
This special mode has various names.
Some DAC vendors, including AKM, refer to it as "Mono Mode"; others may have other slightly different names for it.
It could also reasonably be referred to as "a dual differential mode" - since it combines two outputs that are each already differential together in a sort of criss-cross differential connection.
Either way we're talking about the same thing.
(It's simply a way to connect a high-quality stereo balanced DAC chip as an even higher quality mono balanced DAC chip.)

ALL of the outputs on the RMC-1, and the RMC-1L, and the main front three channels on the XMC-2, use this special output mode.
The other channels on the XMC-2 use each DAC chip in its "normal" mode - in which each chip delivers TWO fully balanced fully differential output channels.

So, to summarize,
ALL of the channels on the RMC-1, the RMC-1L, and the XMC-2 are AT LEAST fully balanced and fully differential...

ALL of the channels in the RMC-1 and the RMC-1L, and the front three channels on the XMC-2, use the even higher quality "mono mode".

On each of those channels, both sets of balanced outputs on a single DAC chip are combined into a single super-quality fully balanced fully differential signal, which is then passed to the fully balanced analog circuitry.
On the remaining channels on the XMC-2, the outputs are "just regular fully balanced fully differential outputs".

* Another Summary and Clarifications Regarding Balanced Signal Paths

Just to be clear, we're talking about the analog signal paths used by the outputs of the DACs.

On the RMC-1 and the RMC-1L, everything is balanced, all the way through, on all the channels, and ALL the DAC chips are used in mono mode.

On the XMC-2, everything is balanced, all the way through, on all the channels, and but only the DAC chips on the L/C/R channels are used in mono mode.

On the XMC-1, all of the DACs themselves are balanced, only the front L/R channels follow a signal path that is balanced all the way through, and none of the DAC chips are used in mono mode

(And, yes, the balanced outputs on all of them are all fully balanced outputs.)

[Lsc]

audioHTIT , thank you! This really clarifies it for me! So, it definitely seems like there is a difference with the mono mode.

It probably would have been a bigger difference if the RMC1 used the Ak4497 and the RMC1L used the AK4493.

Then the processors could have genuine sound quality and feature differences.

I work in product management- I’m gonna have to see if Emotiva is hiring a product manager 😬.

[davidl81]

Aug 19, 2019 11:28:03 GMT -5 Lsc said:

audioHTIT , thank you! This really clarifies it for me! So, it definitely seems like there is a difference with the mono mode.

It probably would have been a bigger difference if the RMC1 used the AkM4497 and the RMC1L used the AKM4493.

Then the processors could have genuine sound quality and feature differences.

I work in product management- I’m gonna have to see if Emotiva is hiring a product manager 😬.

I would venture to guess that having the same chips in all three units makes it easier from a firmware/support prospective.  All the units are basically the same inside with the exact same hardware.  Should make support much simpler.  It does really make the XMC-2 the best "value" of all three IMO, but there are reasons for the RMC-1 and the RMC-1L to exist.  

And if I had to guess the RMC-1L may be the lowest selling unit of the three.  But it makes sense for Emotiva to make it.  I would guess the cost increase to build from the XMC-2 to the RMC-1L is maybe $100 +/- (better connections, dual OLED), but you can retail it for $1000 more.  And if there is no real extra money for supporting the unit might as well make it. 

[Lsc]

Aug 19, 2019 11:41:08 GMT -5 davidl81 said:

Aug 19, 2019 11:28:03 GMT -5 Lsc said:

audioHTIT , thank you! This really clarifies it for me! So, it definitely seems like there is a difference with the mono mode.

It probably would have been a bigger difference if the RMC1 used the AkM4497 and the RMC1L used the AKM4493.

Then the processors could have genuine sound quality and feature differences.

I work in product management- I’m gonna have to see if Emotiva is hiring a product manager 😬.

I would venture to guess that having the same chips in all three units makes it easier from a firmware/support prospective.  All the units are basically the same inside with the exact same hardware.  Should make support much simpler.  It does really make the XMC-2 the best "value" of all three IMO, but there are reasons for the RMC-1 and the RMC-1L to exist.  

And if I had to guess the RMC-1L may be the lowest selling unit of the three.  But it makes sense for Emotiva to make it.  I would guess the cost increase to build from the XMC-2 to the RMC-1L is maybe $100 +/- (better connections, dual OLED), but you can retail it for $1000 more.  And if there is no real extra money for supporting the unit might as well make it. 

I understand Emotiva’s decision but since the DACs are hardware, I’m not sure how much additional code is needed to support different DACs. I have no idea lol.

Another option would be to not release the RMC1L. I actually think this product will undercut the RMC1 and the fewer RMC1s are sold, the greater the chance of nothing being developed for those expansion slots. Maybe the expansion slots will allow the new DTX format on the RMC1 only.

I was just thinking out loud...personally I don’t really care what Emotiva does with the RMC1/RMC1L. I am extremely happy that they upgraded the XMC2’s features from concept to what they delivered.

It’s everything that I want and more at a price point that made me jump on it, day 1. I doubt I’ll ever go 9.1.6 but 7.1.4 is possible with 5.1.4 being my short term goal.