|
Post by megash0n on Apr 13, 2020 13:13:02 GMT -5
Anyone getting a lot of comb filtering effects using 2 subs? When I use my 2 subs (they are not the same), I get a lot of cancellation and the bass sounds flat and muted. When I disconnect my old SB13, the PB16 pressurizes the room to the point where stuff starts to fall off the walls. I was planning on buying another PB16 down the road but I don’t think I need it. That whole post I made about alignment... That is most likely the issue. Time and phase alignment is very crucial in integrating multiple subs. Then, they have to be integrated with your mains. I wish I were better at actually doing this because I'm sure my system would sound better if I did.
|
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,352
|
Post by Lsc on Apr 13, 2020 14:28:59 GMT -5
Anyone getting a lot of comb filtering effects using 2 subs? When I use my 2 subs (they are not the same), I get a lot of cancellation and the bass sounds flat and muted. When I disconnect my old SB13, the PB16 pressurizes the room to the point where stuff starts to fall off the walls. I was planning on buying another PB16 down the road but I don’t think I need it. That whole post I made about alignment... That is most likely the issue. Time and phase alignment is very crucial in integrating multiple subs. Then, they have to be integrated with your mains. I wish I were better at actually doing this because I'm sure my system would sound better if I did. Thank you! Now I understand what you mean. I think it’s a long arduous process!!! The way my system sounds with 1 SVS PB16 ultra, I’m probably just better off just using 1 sub (it’s a beast of a sub anyway at 174.5 lbs).
|
|
|
Post by megash0n on Apr 13, 2020 15:08:05 GMT -5
That whole post I made about alignment... That is most likely the issue. Time and phase alignment is very crucial in integrating multiple subs. Then, they have to be integrated with your mains. I wish I were better at actually doing this because I'm sure my system would sound better if I did. Thank you! Now I understand what you mean. I think it’s a long arduous process!!! The way my system sounds with 1 SVS PB16 ultra, I’m probably just better off just using 1 sub (it’s a beast of a sub anyway at 174.5 lbs). It is a task for someone, like myself, that doesn't understand how to perform all the testing, and to implement solutions, like a pro. And, most pros don't even agree on how to do these things. I know this statement doesn't hold true for every circumstance, but you don't necessarily add subs to make your bass louder. You add subs to flatten your in room response, and more importantly, to make the bass sound great in all major listening positions. One sub may have a null at your seat at 80hz, but placing another sub somewhere else, possibly with different timing and phase alignment could cure that null. You add subs to "fix" nulls, or something missing, at your seating location. Once they are all integrated, you should get the overall summed output higher than using one sub as well. Another added benefit is that you are moving more air. But, you could also move more air with a single, larger cone. In the end, I do agree that one sub is way better than multiple subs that aren't integrated properly. While I don't think that all this guys stuff is the best advice all the time, I do like the thorough walkthrough of this multiple sub video. Again, you may disagree with some of his logic in some areas... But the concepts touched upon in this video should equip you with the knowledge to ask more questions and to research your own version of the truth. I don't like his method of time alignment because I feel like he could use REW to derive more exact numbers. What I mean is... Someone could probably do a better job than this guy following better industry practices or tools. But, it's still an awesome explanation of the "how" and "why" youtu.be/_A6gPCczhuU
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Apr 14, 2020 9:10:26 GMT -5
We're on the same page. So I did my sub PEQ and alignment with miniDSP, but it still seemed the PEQ filters from REW were not being applied right on the other speakers in the XMC-2. It wasn't too bad so I gave up on it. Waiting for Dirac. Regarding time alignment ... distance and time are really the same thing. Roughly 1ms per foot. If you measure the speaker distances exactly and enter them, then run REW with a timing reference, you should see them all line up on 0 in the Impulse Response. If not, just use the 1ms per foot to fine tune. Wow that’s really good. I should check that impulse response. I’ll do some google search on this since Dirac won’t help until we get Dirac bass management. Who knows when Dirac will have that finished. SOME improved accommodation of multiple subs has been mentioned for the standard Dirac 2.0 but unclear if/what that will be. Back to Option 5, there is another consideration and maybe someone can confirm this: I believe bass management is applied first, and then PEQ. That seems to be the case because I have made my LFE channel flat to 150Hz with miniDSP, and I measure my Center channel with no LFE running and see that it rolls off below 200Hz (Magnepan CC5). So I set the crossover to 200Hz as recommended, but the combined measurement with LFE turned on has an 8db boost in the crossover region centered around 110Hz +/- 60Hz. If I put a filter on the Center channel to try to compensate nothing happens, because the signal <200Hz has already been sent to the LFE before the PEQ is applied. The solution was to dink the crossover point down to 150Hz which still leaves some nonlinearity but not as bad.
|
|
|
Post by megash0n on Apr 14, 2020 9:39:48 GMT -5
Wow that’s really good. I should check that impulse response. I’ll do some google search on this since Dirac won’t help until we get Dirac bass management. Who knows when Dirac will have that finished. SOME improved accommodation of multiple subs has been mentioned for the standard Dirac 2.0 but unclear if/what that will be. Back to Option 5, there is another consideration and maybe someone can confirm this: I believe bass management is applied first, and then PEQ. That seems to be the case because I have made my LFE channel flat to 150Hz with miniDSP, and I measure my Center channel with no LFE running and see that it rolls off below 200Hz (Magnepan CC5). So I set the crossover to 200Hz as recommended, but the combined measurement with LFE turned on has an 8db boost in the crossover region centered around 110Hz +/- 60Hz. If I put a filter on the Center channel to try to compensate nothing happens, because the signal <200Hz has already been sent to the LFE before the PEQ is applied. The solution was to dink the crossover point down to 150Hz which still leaves some nonlinearity but not as bad. First, for clarification.. You mean mono subs.. Not LFE, correct? LFE is going to go to the sub regardless. Couldn't you set your crossover on the processor at either, but set your minidsp to roll off a bit earlier to bring that "doubling" down some? This is a quick and generic response, but I hope you get what I'm meaning. Second option would be how I would approach this. Leave the subs as they are if they are flat, run a sweep, and apply filters, on the center channel that cuts db between those frequencies by 6db. That should flatten it out, correct?
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Apr 14, 2020 10:15:18 GMT -5
SOME improved accommodation of multiple subs has been mentioned for the standard Dirac 2.0 but unclear if/what that will be. Back to Option 5, there is another consideration and maybe someone can confirm this: I believe bass management is applied first, and then PEQ. That seems to be the case because I have made my LFE channel flat to 150Hz with miniDSP, and I measure my Center channel with no LFE running and see that it rolls off below 200Hz (Magnepan CC5). So I set the crossover to 200Hz as recommended, but the combined measurement with LFE turned on has an 8db boost in the crossover region centered around 110Hz +/- 60Hz. If I put a filter on the Center channel to try to compensate nothing happens, because the signal <200Hz has already been sent to the LFE before the PEQ is applied. The solution was to dink the crossover point down to 150Hz which still leaves some nonlinearity but not as bad. First, for clarification.. You mean mono subs.. Not LFE, correct? LFE is going to go to the sub regardless. Couldn't you set your crossover on the processor at either, but set your minidsp to roll off a bit earlier to bring that "doubling" down some? This is a quick and generic response, but I hope you get what I'm meaning. Second option would be how I would approach this. Leave the subs as they are if they are flat, run a sweep, and apply filters, on the center channel that cuts db between those frequencies by 6db. That should flatten it out, correct? Yes, sorry to be precise I'm using Center Sub in Mono mode as the input to the miniDSP which then feeds two Outlaw subs and a Magnepan DWM to cover 16-150Hz. Since my surround speakers cross over at 80 or 100Hz, yes I could roll off the subs above 100Hz to mitigate the "doubling down". Second option does not work for the reason I postulated above. With subs flat, I did a sweep full range on the center channel, created a filter to cut the bump by 6db, and it had absolutely no effect. It seems the center channel below 200Hz is sent to the sub output before the PEQ is applied.
|
|
|
Post by megash0n on Apr 14, 2020 12:31:46 GMT -5
First, for clarification.. You mean mono subs.. Not LFE, correct? LFE is going to go to the sub regardless. Couldn't you set your crossover on the processor at either, but set your minidsp to roll off a bit earlier to bring that "doubling" down some? This is a quick and generic response, but I hope you get what I'm meaning. Second option would be how I would approach this. Leave the subs as they are if they are flat, run a sweep, and apply filters, on the center channel that cuts db between those frequencies by 6db. That should flatten it out, correct? Yes, sorry to be precise I'm using Center Sub in Mono mode as the input to the miniDSP which then feeds two Outlaw subs and a Magnepan DWM to cover 16-150Hz. Since my surround speakers cross over at 80 or 100Hz, yes I could roll off the subs above 100Hz to mitigate the "doubling down". Second option does not work for the reason I postulated above. With subs flat, I did a sweep full range on the center channel, created a filter to cut the bump by 6db, and it had absolutely no effect. It seems the center channel below 200Hz is sent to the sub output before the PEQ is applied. I gotcha. Thinking out loud here.. 2 things are happening. The processor is sending everything below 200 to your subs, and your center is " Rolling off" at 12 or 24 hz per octave starting at or just before 200hz. So, the carryover is doubling with your subs increasing a span of frequencies by 6db. Are you "ramping up" with the same slope from >200hz to 200hz in the minidsp? Meaning.. A low pass filter I think it would be called starting at some frequency, at 24db per octave, that gets you at full db around 160 - 180hz? All of this is me thinking out loud. I don't have my PC handy ATM to look at actual numbers, but I'm sure you get what I'm after. I would think you'd want your subs tapering off around 160ish because your center is still playing at that point. Edit.. I'm reading your post again because I'm pretty sure I just said the same thing I said the first time.. Just in a different way. You are stating that the processor isn't listening to the filter below 200hz. I have no idea if your theory is correct or not. I would think that those should be two, parallel things in regards to bass management and peq. But, think about it.. If you set crossover at 200hz, you are already stating you want to kill everything below it at 24db per octave. There really is nothing else to do but not take your subs flat up to 200. Try taking them to 160 or 180 and check that out.
|
|
|
Post by megash0n on Apr 14, 2020 12:33:58 GMT -5
First, for clarification.. You mean mono subs.. Not LFE, correct? LFE is going to go to the sub regardless. Couldn't you set your crossover on the processor at either, but set your minidsp to roll off a bit earlier to bring that "doubling" down some? This is a quick and generic response, but I hope you get what I'm meaning. Second option would be how I would approach this. Leave the subs as they are if they are flat, run a sweep, and apply filters, on the center channel that cuts db between those frequencies by 6db. That should flatten it out, correct? Yes, sorry to be precise I'm using Center Sub in Mono mode as the input to the miniDSP which then feeds two Outlaw subs and a Magnepan DWM to cover 16-150Hz. Since my surround speakers cross over at 80 or 100Hz, yes I could roll off the subs above 100Hz to mitigate the "doubling down". Second option does not work for the reason I postulated above. With subs flat, I did a sweep full range on the center channel, created a filter to cut the bump by 6db, and it had absolutely no effect. It seems the center channel below 200Hz is sent to the sub output before the PEQ is applied. Also, I hope I didn't come off as an ass hat with the LFE designation. I just wanted to be sure 😊
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Apr 14, 2020 13:37:55 GMT -5
My view is that a speaker that outputs much over 100hz is not a sub woofer, it’s a woofer. Any sound much over 80 hz is directional, so crossing over above that results in a loss of directionality. Simple example, a sound effect at, say, 150hz that is supposed to come from the LHS surround is now emanating from the sub, which is most likely not in the LHS surround location. Crossing over to a woofer at 150/200 hz means losing a great deal of sound directionality and is not something that I would ever consider.
Inexpensive and hence often poorly engineered Class D power amps can have horrid high frequency harmonics. Which screw with the low frequency driver (woofer or sub woofer) response which in turn makes their integration (with the main speakers) far more difficult. Personally I have found a quality Class AB power amp makes it far easier to tune a sub woofer.
I’m a firm believer in the KISS approach, especially when it comes to achieving quality sound in a home theatre or stereo environment. A single sub crossed over at 60 to 80 hz in a room with decent acoustics is both effective and simple. Life is too short to spend hours/days/weeks trying to tune something that gives little to no discernible difference until it’s perfect, which is frequently not achieved.
Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by Percussionista on Apr 14, 2020 14:27:05 GMT -5
... Inexpensive and hence often poorly engineered Class D power amps can have horrid high frequency harmonics. Which screw with the low frequency driver (woofer or sub woofer) response which in turn makes their integration (with the main speakers) far more difficult. Personally I have found a quality Class AB power amp makes it far easier to tune a sub woofer. ... Cheers Gary So I wonder, the Emo PA-1 is presumably not poorly engineered, and could be used to drive an un-powered subwoofer, would you still vote against this vs. a class AB amp? I'm thinking specifically of my first subwoofer that I still have, unpowered, 10-inch, and very efficient, the PA-1 has plenty of juice to run it. This SW was supplied by my then-high-end dealer, via a special build from southern CA, hence no-label. It's sorta furniture grade (real oak all around), and 17-18 inches in all directions, which I imagine helps with the efficiency for only a 10-incher. It was supplied with a Rotel stereo amp, running in bridged mode. I haven't decided if I'm eventually going to put this back in service for more limited use, not killer theater, so a mono-amp would be desired. This is WAY WAY down in priorities and thinking. Just musing for now.
|
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,352
|
Post by Lsc on Apr 14, 2020 15:04:29 GMT -5
Wow that’s really good. I should check that impulse response. I’ll do some google search on this since Dirac won’t help until we get Dirac bass management. Who knows when Dirac will have that finished. SOME improved accommodation of multiple subs has been mentioned for the standard Dirac 2.0 but unclear if/what that will be. Back to Option 5, there is another consideration and maybe someone can confirm this: I believe bass management is applied first, and then PEQ. That seems to be the case because I have made my LFE channel flat to 150Hz with miniDSP, and I measure my Center channel with no LFE running and see that it rolls off below 200Hz (Magnepan CC5). So I set the crossover to 200Hz as recommended, but the combined measurement with LFE turned on has an 8db boost in the crossover region centered around 110Hz +/- 60Hz. If I put a filter on the Center channel to try to compensate nothing happens, because the signal <200Hz has already been sent to the LFE before the PEQ is applied. The solution was to dink the crossover point down to 150Hz which still leaves some nonlinearity but not as bad. I agree that the XMC2 should apply the crossover prior to PEQ. Therefore, if the crossover for my center is 60hz, anything below 60hz is going to the sub so there isn’t anything below 60hz for the PEQ to correct.
|
|
|
Post by megash0n on Apr 14, 2020 16:23:32 GMT -5
SOME improved accommodation of multiple subs has been mentioned for the standard Dirac 2.0 but unclear if/what that will be. Back to Option 5, there is another consideration and maybe someone can confirm this: I believe bass management is applied first, and then PEQ. That seems to be the case because I have made my LFE channel flat to 150Hz with miniDSP, and I measure my Center channel with no LFE running and see that it rolls off below 200Hz (Magnepan CC5). So I set the crossover to 200Hz as recommended, but the combined measurement with LFE turned on has an 8db boost in the crossover region centered around 110Hz +/- 60Hz. If I put a filter on the Center channel to try to compensate nothing happens, because the signal <200Hz has already been sent to the LFE before the PEQ is applied. The solution was to dink the crossover point down to 150Hz which still leaves some nonlinearity but not as bad. I agree that the XMC2 should apply the crossover prior to PEQ. Therefore, if the crossover for my center is 60hz, anything below 60hz is going to the sub so there isn’t anything below 60hz for the PEQ to correct. Well, at 60hz, you have a 24db per octave filter already there by virtue of the crossover. There's really not much else to do, right?
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Apr 14, 2020 16:23:34 GMT -5
Inexpensive and hence often poorly engineered Class D power amps can have horrid high frequency harmonics. Which screw with the low frequency driver (woofer or sub woofer) response which in turn makes their integration (with the main speakers) far more difficult. Personally I have found a quality Class AB power amp makes it far easier to tune a sub woofer. So I wonder, the Emo PA-1 is presumably not poorly engineered, and could be used to drive an un-powered subwoofer, would you still vote against this vs. a class AB amp? I'm thinking specifically of my first subwoofer that I still have, unpowered, 10-inch, and very efficient, the PA-1 has plenty of juice to run it. This SW was supplied by my then-high-end dealer, via a special build from southern CA, hence no-label. It's sorta furniture grade (real oak all around), and 17-18 inches in all directions, which I imagine helps with the efficiency for only a 10-incher. It was supplied with a Rotel stereo amp, running in bridged mode. I haven't decided if I'm eventually going to put this back in service for more limited use, not killer theater, so a mono-amp would be desired. This is WAY WAY down in priorities and thinking. Just musing for now. I wonder too as I haven’t heard a PA-1, my guess, and it’s only a guess, is that Emotiva (who are famous for their power amps) wouldn’t risk their reputation. They have a decent damping factor (500+) which I have found is essential for a good sub woofer outcome, plus they are small enough to locate close by the sub, with a short speaker cable not reducing the damping factor. They also have an XLR input so no risk of introduced noise with a long interconnect. Seems like a low risk experiment to me. Cheers Gary
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,002
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 14, 2020 22:51:52 GMT -5
Just to be perfectly clear here....
The manual PEQ settings on the subwoofer channel (and only that channel) do not work in the current firmware version... (v1.9) (In most cases the PEQ settings you enter into that channel actually do nothing.)
This has been fixed in the beta firmware and will be working correctly in the next firmware release...
Dirac does an excellent job of time aligning your speakers - including your subs. And their roadmap includes future enhancements that will calibrate multiple subs "together" - which may improve the situation ever further. However, I would remind everyone that room correction is not magic, and cannot fix everything, or make everything perfect. (And no amount of tuning or special software on the computer in my Nissan Versa will enable it to go 300 mpH.)
You will still get the best results if, before you run the room correction, you do your best to find relatively good locations for your subs.
SOME improved accommodation of multiple subs has been mentioned for the standard Dirac 2.0 but unclear if/what that will be. Back to Option 5, there is another consideration and maybe someone can confirm this: I believe bass management is applied first, and then PEQ. That seems to be the case because I have made my LFE channel flat to 150Hz with miniDSP, and I measure my Center channel with no LFE running and see that it rolls off below 200Hz (Magnepan CC5). So I set the crossover to 200Hz as recommended, but the combined measurement with LFE turned on has an 8db boost in the crossover region centered around 110Hz +/- 60Hz. If I put a filter on the Center channel to try to compensate nothing happens, because the signal <200Hz has already been sent to the LFE before the PEQ is applied. The solution was to dink the crossover point down to 150Hz which still leaves some nonlinearity but not as bad. I agree that the XMC2 should apply the crossover prior to PEQ. Therefore, if the crossover for my center is 60hz, anything below 60hz is going to the sub so there isn’t anything below 60hz for the PEQ to correct.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,002
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 14, 2020 22:55:27 GMT -5
I'm inclined to agree.
When "subs and satellite speakers" were first described... the "proper" crossover was described as "between 80 Hz and 100 Hz".
And, in most cases, that is still a fair description of the point where directionality ceases to be an issue.
As far as I'm concerned, a powered driver whose response extends up to 200 Hz, is simply "a powered woofer".
My view is that a speaker that outputs much over 100hz is not a sub woofer, it’s a woofer. Any sound much over 80 hz is directional, so crossing over above that results in a loss of directionality. Simple example, a sound effect at, say, 150hz that is supposed to come from the LHS surround is now emanating from the sub, which is most likely not in the LHS surround location. Crossing over to a woofer at 150/200 hz means losing a great deal of sound directionality and is not something that I would ever consider. Inexpensive and hence often poorly engineered Class D power amps can have horrid high frequency harmonics. Which screw with the low frequency driver (woofer or sub woofer) response which in turn makes their integration (with the main speakers) far more difficult. Personally I have found a quality Class AB power amp makes it far easier to tune a sub woofer. I’m a firm believer in the KISS approach, especially when it comes to achieving quality sound in a home theatre or stereo environment. A single sub crossed over at 60 to 80 hz in a room with decent acoustics is both effective and simple. Life is too short to spend hours/days/weeks trying to tune something that gives little to no discernible difference until it’s perfect, which is frequently not achieved. Cheers Gary
|
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,352
|
Post by Lsc on Apr 14, 2020 23:15:23 GMT -5
Just to be perfectly clear here.... The manual PEQ settings on the subwoofer channel (and only that channel) do not work in the current firmware version... (v1.9) (In most cases the PEQ settings you enter into that channel actually do nothing.)
This has been fixed in the beta firmware and will be working correctly in the next firmware release... Dirac does an excellent job of time aligning your speakers - including your subs. And their roadmap includes future enhancements that will calibrate multiple subs "together" - which may improve the situation ever further. However, I would remind everyone that room correction is not magic, and cannot fix everything, or make everything perfect. (And no amount of tuning or special software on the computer in my Nissan Versa will enable it to go 300 mpH.)
You will still get the best results if, before you run the room correction, you do your best to find relatively good locations for your subs.
I agree that the XMC2 should apply the crossover prior to PEQ. Therefore, if the crossover for my center is 60hz, anything below 60hz is going to the sub so there isn’t anything below 60hz for the PEQ to correct. Thanks Keith. I’m on 1.9.1 beta so maybe it’s working for me.
|
|
|
Post by megash0n on Apr 15, 2020 7:31:24 GMT -5
Just to be perfectly clear here....
The manual PEQ settings on the subwoofer channel (and only that channel) do not work in the current firmware version... (v1.9) (In most cases the PEQ settings you enter into that channel actually do nothing.)
This has been fixed in the beta firmware and will be working correctly in the next firmware release...
Dirac does an excellent job of time aligning your speakers - including your subs. And their roadmap includes future enhancements that will calibrate multiple subs "together" - which may improve the situation ever further. However, I would remind everyone that room correction is not magic, and cannot fix everything, or make everything perfect. (And no amount of tuning or special software on the computer in my Nissan Versa will enable it to go 300 mpH.)
You will still get the best results if, before you run the room correction, you do your best to find relatively good locations for your subs.
I agree that the XMC2 should apply the crossover prior to PEQ. Therefore, if the crossover for my center is 60hz, anything below 60hz is going to the sub so there isn’t anything below 60hz for the PEQ to correct. I don't think your Nissan example is remotely fair. I started to explain why, but your 300mph number is so extreme that I feel like maybe you're just joking here. ☺ I agree with your overall opinion which is the room is most important. It is. But, you can treat the room all you want.... 1 sub in all 4 corners will need time/phase alignment or it just won't be right. It might satisfy your particular ears, but it wont be correct. The further your subs are from the mains, the more adjusting they will need for proper integration. An hour on YouTube will make this undeniable. Sometimes, we need to paint with a narrower brush when making assertions. If we were only discussing eq, then sure, the room is the bulk of the issue. But, we are also talking about integration. I think what needs more attention is that these products have been on the market for well over a year and we still can't use basic functions at all or reliably.
|
|
|
Post by swank121 on Apr 15, 2020 21:24:38 GMT -5
Update: Since the unit works with the reboot process described (so far) I called to see what the turnaround might be. Got a quick response that it could be weeks, so for now better to keep the unit and wait until the world around us settled down. Thanks Steve for the prompt response! Wise choice. I sent mine in for repair on 3/18 after a failed update to 1.9. It had entered an infinite loop trying to update the HDMI board and never recovered. I finally got it back yesterday! They replaced the "ECC-1" board. I have a new problem with the network connection. Android remote app is not working. My DHCP server issues an IP address, but the UI shows 62.0.0.0 which is obviously not correct. Static IP assignment doesn't work. I'll try to factory reset when I have some time to tinker.
|
|
|
Post by megash0n on Apr 15, 2020 21:31:45 GMT -5
Update: Since the unit works with the reboot process described (so far) I called to see what the turnaround might be. Got a quick response that it could be weeks, so for now better to keep the unit and wait until the world around us settled down. Thanks Steve for the prompt response! Wise choice. I sent mine in for repair on 3/18 after a failed update to 1.9. It had entered an infinite loop trying to update the HDMI board and never recovered. I finally got it back yesterday! They replaced the "ECC-1" board. I have a new problem with the network connection. Android remote app is not working. My DHCP server issues an IP address, but the UI shows 62.0.0.0 which is obviously not correct. Static IP assignment doesn't work. I'll try to factory reset when I have some time to tinker. Some of this stuff just amazes me. It's very concerning.
|
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,927
|
Post by cawgijoe on Apr 15, 2020 22:03:34 GMT -5
Wise choice. I sent mine in for repair on 3/18 after a failed update to 1.9. It had entered an infinite loop trying to update the HDMI board and never recovered. I finally got it back yesterday! They replaced the "ECC-1" board. I have a new problem with the network connection. Android remote app is not working. My DHCP server issues an IP address, but the UI shows 62.0.0.0 which is obviously not correct. Static IP assignment doesn't work. I'll try to factory reset when I have some time to tinker. Some of this stuff just amazes me. It's very concerning. I’m assuming these types of issues are not common? My XMC-2 has been quite stable.
|
|