|
|
Post by PaulBe on Aug 8, 2022 16:07:44 GMT -5
According to the accepted psychoacoustic theory we humans cannot localize sounds below 80-100 Hz. And, assuming that the producers follow standard practices when producing content, content placed in the LFE should be limited to the range below this. However, in practice, there are a whole bunch of factors that complicate this. For one thing, bass management filters are not absolute, so higher frequencies will make their way to the subwoofer that way. Even if you have an 80 Hz crossover, at 24 dB/octave, a sound in another channel at 320 Hz will only be down about 45 dB in the subwoofer. If that sound happens to be loud, and your sub has good high frequency response, that will be well about the background noise level... (And, if you have that sub jacked up by 10-15 dB as well it could well be audible.) However the main thing that I've seen that tends to make localization issues is EXTRANEOUS NOISE. Some subwoofers may make a bit of noise on their own due to cabinet vibration, port chuffing, or just plain distortion of other sorts. And, on top of that, most ROOMS are far from silent when it comes to vibration. You get noises from the floor and walls vibrating... as well as physical vibration in the floor... You get rattling from things on shelves, pipes in the wall, and especially drop ceilings and blinds... (And there's not much you can do to silence a drop ceiling or a window against low frequency vibrations.) Paneled walls tend to buzz... and large windows tend to rattle or boom... And all of these things tend to telegraph the location of the subwoofer. In short, the "rules" about what frequencies can be localized do work, but ONLY IF YOU CAN TOTALLY RULE OUT THESE OTHER CUES. And, if you cannot do so, then a symmetrical arrangement of subwoofers tends to sound much more natural. (And, if you are stuck with a LOT of these other cues, then you're better off with one sub centered at front or back.) For these reasons, I could always identify the Velodyne HGS-15 subwoofer. The dual Rythmik E22s solved that problem. There is not need for a butt kicker.  - Rich Had to look up the E22s. That is an elegant solution. |
|
richb
Sensei
Oppo Beta Group - Audioholics Reviewer
Posts: 889
|
Post by richb on Aug 8, 2022 16:24:34 GMT -5
For these reasons, I could always identify the Velodyne HGS-15 subwoofer. The dual Rythmik E22s solved that problem. There is not need for a butt kicker. - Rich Had to look up the E22s. That is an elegant solution. I had cabinets made by Salk Sound to Match the Salon2s. He was very reasonable. Still considerably less than JL subs.  - Rich |
|
EmoBrent
Emo Staff 
Processor and Product Support
Posts: 54
|
Post by EmoBrent on Aug 9, 2022 9:45:41 GMT -5
You also need to keep in mind that SPEAKERS and CABINETS introduce mechanical phase shift. The subwoofer driver and cabinet comprise a mechanical tuned filter... and often a quite complex one... whose characteristics you do not know in detail. And, if the subwoofer has its own non-defeatable crossover, that adds electronic phase shift as well. There's not much point in obsessing about the phase shift specifically in the bass management circuitry... Because there's a good chance that there is FAR more phase shift in the subwoofer itself... And, if you're going to bother to make detailed measurements there, then you need to measure it all together. Is there a LPF in the LFE circuit in the RMC? What kind of filter is it? What frequency is it set at? How many poles? What is the phase shift at 120Hz? Please. We could pick out one part of the DSP, like the filter applied to the LFE track, and give you the specs on that portion of the crossover as an isolated filter. However, it is important to understand that any isolated filter is acting in a much more complex system that makes picking out and focusing on only one aspect a little narrow. Each time a filter is applied in the DSP, some additional phase shift occurs, and there is not a single, fixed phase shift that we can give you for the output of the LFE. The DSP uses the same equations to model filters that govern the analog realm, so they are subject to the same physical laws, so to speak. This includes the bass manager that is required to be always run by the Dolby/DTS upmixers, the additional 250Hz low-pass crossover that is applied to the LFE track, any EQ applied to that channel, etc. Then take into account the various subwoofer crossovers and amplifiers that will be used after the processor (even the LFE input in most subwoofers is applying some kind of low pass filter, many subs now apply internal DSP too) introducing more phasing variables. Plus the mechanical issues that Keith brings up with speakers. Distances and timings also affect the resulting phase cohesion of the system. Not to mention all of the filtering happening to the other channels outside of the LFE track. The phase shift applied to the LFE track is still an important part of the equation, but it is a much smaller part than one might think looking at it as an isolated filter. Measuring and correcting the entire system output based on measurements, be it manually or using something like Dirac, will likely give the best result or at least the best information about the phasing of your system rather than focusing on each filter in isolation and trying to come up with the resultant phase. Or tune by ear. Or just sit back and enjoy the show, which is more my tendency. |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Aug 9, 2022 11:22:09 GMT -5
Is there a LPF in the LFE circuit in the RMC? What kind of filter is it? What frequency is it set at? How many poles? What is the phase shift at 120Hz? Please. We could pick out one part of the DSP, like the filter applied to the LFE track, and give you the specs on that portion of the crossover as an isolated filter. However, it is important to understand that any isolated filter is acting in a much more complex system that makes picking out and focusing on only one aspect a little narrow. Each time a filter is applied in the DSP, some additional phase shift occurs, and there is not a single, fixed phase shift that we can give you for the output of the LFE. The DSP uses the same equations to model filters that govern the analog realm, so they are subject to the same physical laws, so to speak. This includes the bass manager that is required to be always run by the Dolby/DTS upmixers, the additional 250Hz low-pass crossover that is applied to the LFE track, any EQ applied to that channel, etc. Then take into account the various subwoofer crossovers and amplifiers that will be used after the processor (even the LFE input in most subwoofers is applying some kind of low pass filter, many subs now apply internal DSP too) introducing more phasing variables. Plus the mechanical issues that Keith brings up with speakers. Distances and timings also affect the resulting phase cohesion of the system. Not to mention all of the filtering happening to the other channels outside of the LFE track. The phase shift applied to the LFE track is still an important part of the equation, but it is a much smaller part than one might think looking at it as an isolated filter. Measuring and correcting the entire system output based on measurements, be it manually or using something like Dirac, will likely give the best result or at least the best information about the phasing of your system rather than focusing on each filter in isolation and trying to come up with the resultant phase. Or tune by ear. Or just sit back and enjoy the show, which is more my tendency. We have to treat a lot of it as a black box. If we have no way to change what's in the box, the best we can do is look at the outputs after which we DO have some control and do as little harm as possible downstream of that. Seems to me if the frequency response is flat and the impulse responses align, then that aspect of the system provides a baseline. From there you can boost the bass or whatever and the response should change in a uniform way. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Aug 9, 2022 16:59:19 GMT -5
Is there a LPF in the LFE circuit in the RMC? What kind of filter is it? What frequency is it set at? How many poles? What is the phase shift at 120Hz? Please. We could pick out one part of the DSP, like the filter applied to the LFE track, and give you the specs on that portion of the crossover as an isolated filter. However, it is important to understand that any isolated filter is acting in a much more complex system that makes picking out and focusing on only one aspect a little narrow. Each time a filter is applied in the DSP, some additional phase shift occurs, and there is not a single, fixed phase shift that we can give you for the output of the LFE. The DSP uses the same equations to model filters that govern the analog realm, so they are subject to the same physical laws, so to speak. This includes the bass manager that is required to be always run by the Dolby/DTS upmixers, the additional 250Hz low-pass crossover that is applied to the LFE track, any EQ applied to that channel, etc. Then take into account the various subwoofer crossovers and amplifiers that will be used after the processor (even the LFE input in most subwoofers is applying some kind of low pass filter, many subs now apply internal DSP too) introducing more phasing variables. Plus the mechanical issues that Keith brings up with speakers. Distances and timings also affect the resulting phase cohesion of the system. Not to mention all of the filtering happening to the other channels outside of the LFE track. The phase shift applied to the LFE track is still an important part of the equation, but it is a much smaller part than one might think looking at it as an isolated filter. Measuring and correcting the entire system output based on measurements, be it manually or using something like Dirac, will likely give the best result or at least the best information about the phasing of your system rather than focusing on each filter in isolation and trying to come up with the resultant phase. Or tune by ear. Or just sit back and enjoy the show, which is more my tendency. Brent, thanks for your response. I know this is a complex issue. More information is good. Measurements are better. I’m asking for more data to know more about how LFE and BM interact when applying the RMC BM to a system. My system. You can’t account for my room anomalies, furniture, drop ceiling issues, box construction, etc. – essentially all the non-minimum phase issues which are consumer specific. When I know how the RMC system acts, I can handle the rest. Good use of a tool set requires intimate knowledge of the tools. Thanks for pointing out that DSP filtering, just like analog filtering of old, affects phase. Some may not know that. It may help some to use filtering more prudently. In my Bass Managed preset1, I use none of the RMC’s PEQ. I use one RMC PEQ point for each of the 7 base channels in my full range preset2, in the bass, and that PEQ is the same for all 7 channels. The RMC is a black box for which little data is provided for some of its powerful features/tools. I think you ought to be able to offer at least as much detail as we used to get in a 1970’s advertising flyer for the common preamps of the time. Thanks for a few additional details. Some additional thoughts: 1. Offer finer frequency selectivity for bass management frequency selection. 10Hz increments at low frequency is unacceptable. 2. Add adjustable Q to the BM x-over too. Q's of .5 and .7 should be added, and to the PEQ selection. A finer adjustment for Q's would be better. 3. This is my third multiple Sub rodeo in a little over three decades. My first was a pair of 24” Hartley’s in 30cuft John Cockroft style Shortline transmission lines, in stereo, with a hand built, personally designed, subtractive low level x-over network. The second was a commercial pair of powered 12” Subs – I will never again use powered Subs. This pair is now a functional pair of end tables. The third and current setup uses two SI24mkII subwoofers in 10cuft sealed enclosures that are solid as a rock. This setup has almost the same quality of the first Hartley setup, in 1/3 the space, and with similar efficiency, and the same weight. I do ‘sit back and enjoy the show’. |
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Aug 10, 2022 12:01:03 GMT -5
We could pick out one part of the DSP, like the filter applied to the LFE track, and give you the specs on that portion of the crossover as an isolated filter. However, it is important to understand that any isolated filter is acting in a much more complex system that makes picking out and focusing on only one aspect a little narrow. Each time a filter is applied in the DSP, some additional phase shift occurs, and there is not a single, fixed phase shift that we can give you for the output of the LFE. The DSP uses the same equations to model filters that govern the analog realm, so they are subject to the same physical laws, so to speak. This includes the bass manager that is required to be always run by the Dolby/DTS upmixers, the additional 250Hz low-pass crossover that is applied to the LFE track, any EQ applied to that channel, etc. Then take into account the various subwoofer crossovers and amplifiers that will be used after the processor (even the LFE input in most subwoofers is applying some kind of low pass filter, many subs now apply internal DSP too) introducing more phasing variables. Plus the mechanical issues that Keith brings up with speakers. Distances and timings also affect the resulting phase cohesion of the system. Not to mention all of the filtering happening to the other channels outside of the LFE track. The phase shift applied to the LFE track is still an important part of the equation, but it is a much smaller part than one might think looking at it as an isolated filter. Measuring and correcting the entire system output based on measurements, be it manually or using something like Dirac, will likely give the best result or at least the best information about the phasing of your system rather than focusing on each filter in isolation and trying to come up with the resultant phase. Or tune by ear. Or just sit back and enjoy the show, which is more my tendency. Brent, thanks for your response. I know this is a complex issue. More information is good. Measurements are better. I’m asking for more data to know more about how LFE and BM interact when applying the RMC BM to a system. My system. You can’t account for my room anomalies, furniture, drop ceiling issues, box construction, etc. – essentially all the non-minimum phase issues which are consumer specific. When I know how the RMC system acts, I can handle the rest. Good use of a tool set requires intimate knowledge of the tools. Thanks for pointing out that DSP filtering, just like analog filtering of old, affects phase. Some may not know that. It may help some to use filtering more prudently. In my Bass Managed preset1, I use none of the RMC’s PEQ. I use one RMC PEQ point for each of the 7 base channels in my full range preset2, in the bass, and that PEQ is the same for all 7 channels. The RMC is a black box for which little data is provided for some of its powerful features/tools. I think you ought to be able to offer at least as much detail as we used to get in a 1970’s advertising flyer for the common preamps of the time. Thanks for a few additional details. Some additional thoughts: 1. Offer finer frequency selectivity for bass management frequency selection. 10Hz increments at low frequency is unacceptable. 2. Add adjustable Q to the BM x-over too. Q's of .5 and .7 should be added, and to the PEQ selection. A finer adjustment for Q's would be better. 3. This is my third multiple Sub rodeo in a little over three decades. My first was a pair of 24” Hartley’s in 30cuft John Cockroft style Shortline transmission lines, in stereo, with a hand built, personally designed, subtractive low level x-over network. The second was a commercial pair of powered 12” Subs – I will never again use powered Subs. This pair is now a functional pair of end tables. The third and current setup uses two SI24mkII subwoofers in 10cuft sealed enclosures that are solid as a rock. This setup has almost the same quality of the first Hartley setup, in 1/3 the space, and with similar efficiency, and the same weight. I do ‘sit back and enjoy the show’. Don’t hold your breath.. I asked for some improvements to these things 2-3 years ago.. I got a ”thanks, we have it on our todo list”. They are still working on the basics so adding the niceties will not happen in a long time I guess. Too bad really! Would be nice if they checked off some of the new features on this list now and then. Is it that difficult to add more crossover frequencies? I remember asking for 1 increments between 30-50hz, then maybe 5 increments from 50-100hz.. Maybe 2 increments all they way? |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Aug 10, 2022 12:50:29 GMT -5
Brent, thanks for your response. I know this is a complex issue. More information is good. Measurements are better. I’m asking for more data to know more about how LFE and BM interact when applying the RMC BM to a system. My system. You can’t account for my room anomalies, furniture, drop ceiling issues, box construction, etc. – essentially all the non-minimum phase issues which are consumer specific. When I know how the RMC system acts, I can handle the rest. Good use of a tool set requires intimate knowledge of the tools. Thanks for pointing out that DSP filtering, just like analog filtering of old, affects phase. Some may not know that. It may help some to use filtering more prudently. In my Bass Managed preset1, I use none of the RMC’s PEQ. I use one RMC PEQ point for each of the 7 base channels in my full range preset2, in the bass, and that PEQ is the same for all 7 channels. The RMC is a black box for which little data is provided for some of its powerful features/tools. I think you ought to be able to offer at least as much detail as we used to get in a 1970’s advertising flyer for the common preamps of the time. Thanks for a few additional details. Some additional thoughts: 1. Offer finer frequency selectivity for bass management frequency selection. 10Hz increments at low frequency is unacceptable. 2. Add adjustable Q to the BM x-over too. Q's of .5 and .7 should be added, and to the PEQ selection. A finer adjustment for Q's would be better. 3. This is my third multiple Sub rodeo in a little over three decades. My first was a pair of 24” Hartley’s in 30cuft John Cockroft style Shortline transmission lines, in stereo, with a hand built, personally designed, subtractive low level x-over network. The second was a commercial pair of powered 12” Subs – I will never again use powered Subs. This pair is now a functional pair of end tables. The third and current setup uses two SI24mkII subwoofers in 10cuft sealed enclosures that are solid as a rock. This setup has almost the same quality of the first Hartley setup, in 1/3 the space, and with similar efficiency, and the same weight. I do ‘sit back and enjoy the show’. Don’t hold your breath.. I asked for some improvements to these things 2-3 years ago.. I got a ”thanks, we have it on our todo list”. They are still working on the basics so adding the niceties will not happen in a long time I guess. Too bad really! Would be nice if they checked off some of the new features on this list now and then. Is it that difficult to add more crossover frequencies? I remember asking for 1 increments between 30-50hz, then maybe 5 increments from 50-100hz.. Maybe 2 increments all they way? 1 HZ increments would be the right way to go with the whole range in the BM x-over. 1 Hz increments are part of the PEQ, over a very wide range. 1. 1 Hz increments 2. Adjustable Q 3. Allow separate adjustment of frequencies for hi-pass and low-pass These 3 would be a big improvement. |
|
|
|
Post by krobar on Aug 11, 2022 2:28:31 GMT -5
Dirac Bass Control should bring you the 1hz increments for crossovers (Although it can only be used with Dirac enabled).
|
|
|
|
Post by dvcdude on Aug 11, 2022 5:27:50 GMT -5
Ok team I’ve pulled the trigger and sold my XMC2 for an AVM70. Just wanted to say thanks to all who helped me along the rocky journey that was this processor. How do you like it? I am getting close as well |
|
|
|
Post by dvcdude on Aug 11, 2022 5:48:30 GMT -5
All this bass management discussion may be mute if Dirac Bass Management Control were made available for these processors. I may no longer need my MiniDSP. Of course, we need to get the new firmware first
|
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Aug 11, 2022 6:02:43 GMT -5
All this bass management discussion may be mute if Dirac Bass Management Control were made available for these processors. I may no longer need my MiniDSP. Of course, we need to get the new firmware first Chicken or Egg. In order to implement DLBC the Bass Management bugs have to be fixed, and as has been said, this requires a significant rewrite of code to correct a routing problem as well as the summing of multiple BM channels. That seems to be targeted for the release AFTER 3.x ... the rewrite, that is ...not DLBC. Someone from Emotiva please correct me if I didn't get that right. It eliminates the need for the miniDSP, if we get it and it works properly. DLBC has gone through some issues over the past year but seems to be working on other platforms. New arrivals to Dirac (Onkyo/Pioneer) seem to have some problems yet. |
|
|
|
Post by dvcdude on Aug 11, 2022 7:05:47 GMT -5
All this bass management discussion may be mute if Dirac Bass Management Control were made available for these processors. I may no longer need my MiniDSP. Of course, we need to get the new firmware first Chicken or Egg. In order to implement DLBC the Bass Management bugs have to be fixed, and as has been said, this requires a significant rewrite of code to correct a routing problem as well as the summing of multiple BM channels. That seems to be targeted for the release AFTER 3.x ... the rewrite, that is ...not DLBC. Someone from Emotiva please correct me if I didn't get that right. It eliminates the need for the miniDSP, if we get it and it works properly. DLBC has gone through some issues over the past year but seems to be working on other platforms. New arrivals to Dirac (Onkyo/Pioneer) seem to have some problems yet. I have been with Emotiva since the days of the DMC-1. I do not understand why I have to do a hard reboot every time I change inputs on a $3000 processor. I do not have a complicated system. This is rediculous! |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Aug 11, 2022 7:46:32 GMT -5
All this bass management discussion may be mute if Dirac Bass Management Control were made available for these processors. I may no longer need my MiniDSP. Of course, we need to get the new firmware first Chicken or Egg. In order to implement DLBC the Bass Management bugs have to be fixed, and as has been said, this requires a significant rewrite of code to correct a routing problem as well as the summing of multiple BM channels. That seems to be targeted for the release AFTER 3.x ... the rewrite, that is ...not DLBC. Someone from Emotiva please correct me if I didn't get that right. It eliminates the need for the miniDSP, if we get it and it works properly. DLBC has gone through some issues over the past year but seems to be working on other platforms. New arrivals to Dirac (Onkyo/Pioneer) seem to have some problems yet. We are being herded into a Dirac corral for EMO’s and Dirac’s consumption. Dirac is a mass market solution based on someone’s opinions, and is still a protean force of its own. I.E., it’s a changing technology, not likely to be a mature technology for several years, and not the only technology. Basic functioning of the RMC is not a mature technology, and that's before adding BM and Dirac issues. I didn’t purchase my RMC-1L to be herded into a beta level functioning black box and be told “just sit back and enjoy the show”. Even when the black box functions perfectly, assuming it will in the future, information and choices ought to be available. 'Set it and forget it' has not arrived yet. My RMC-1L will have lived its useful life before it does. |
|
|
|
Post by panasonicst60 on Aug 11, 2022 8:54:51 GMT -5
Chicken or Egg. In order to implement DLBC the Bass Management bugs have to be fixed, and as has been said, this requires a significant rewrite of code to correct a routing problem as well as the summing of multiple BM channels. That seems to be targeted for the release AFTER 3.x ... the rewrite, that is ...not DLBC. Someone from Emotiva please correct me if I didn't get that right. It eliminates the need for the miniDSP, if we get it and it works properly. DLBC has gone through some issues over the past year but seems to be working on other platforms. New arrivals to Dirac (Onkyo/Pioneer) seem to have some problems yet. I have been with Emotiva since the days of the DMC-1. I do not understand why I have to do a hard reboot every time I change inputs on a $3000 processor. I do not have a complicated system. This is rediculous! I would definitely do a factory reset. |
|
ttocs
Global Moderator
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,103
|
Post by ttocs on Aug 11, 2022 9:03:07 GMT -5
I didn’t purchase my RMC-1L to be herded into a beta level functioning black box and be told “just sit back and enjoy the show”. 'Set it and forget it' has not arrived yet. My RMC-1L will have lived its useful life before it does. I would've moved on to another processor after only a couple months if my XMC-2 had continuing issues like many have posted about. I have a short temper for such things. Mine works, so I keep loving it, even after it needed a factory reflash. Warranty problem, warranty fix, just like my Krell amp had twice during its first five years. There isn't another processor I'd like to own that I can afford to get this year, but the brand I'd get if I didn't like my XMC-2 is Trinnov. It's a steep hill to climb to think I'd like the sound of a Trinnov any better for two channel, but it's very customizable and for HT, Trinnov would be tough to beat, maybe impossible. Audio quality is subjective, as such, my belief is that everything is a tone control, so that's why I say I love the sound of the XMC-2 for two channel and it would be difficult to best it with another processor. Yes, there are and have been things about the XMC-2 that don't work as they should, but some of those things I don't use, and the others I no longer need. My system setup evolved to overcome its shortcomings so my experience can remain great. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Aug 11, 2022 10:47:27 GMT -5
I didn’t purchase my RMC-1L to be herded into a beta level functioning black box and be told “just sit back and enjoy the show”. 'Set it and forget it' has not arrived yet. My RMC-1L will have lived its useful life before it does. I would've moved on to another processor after only a couple months if my XMC-2 had continuing issues like many have posted about. I have a short temper for such things. Mine works, so I keep loving it, even after it needed a factory reflash. Warranty problem, warranty fix, just like my Krell amp had twice during its first five years. There isn't another processor I'd like to own that I can afford to get this year, but the brand I'd get if I didn't like my XMC-2 is Trinnov. It's a steep hill to climb to think I'd like the sound of a Trinnov any better for two channel, but it's very customizable and for HT, Trinnov would be tough to beat, maybe impossible. Audio quality is subjective, as such, my belief is that everything is a tone control, so that's why I say I love the sound of the XMC-2 for two channel and it would be difficult to best it with another processor. Yes, there are and have been things about the XMC-2 that don't work as they should, but some of those things I don't use, and the others I no longer need. My system setup evolved to overcome its shortcomings so my experience can remain great. Trinnov and variants are the gold standard for configuration, and price. Sound quality isn’t specifically subjective but I understand what you mean; I think. Once we get to a certain quality level that can no longer be objectively improved, or is hard to define, and can be maintained, everything is a flavor – a tone control with a level control. I find it interesting how the character and interpretation of a piece of music can be manipulated in subtle ways at this quality level. The sound quality of the RMC is at this level, in 2 ch. stereo, and, multi-channel when it's right or can be tweaked. “My system setup evolved to overcome its shortcomings so my experience can remain great.” “…some of those things I don't use, and the others I no longer need.” Same here. I just want more information, a few improvements in configuration, and a bit more stability. And, don’t mess with the sound quality EMO. |
|
EmoBrent
Emo Staff
Processor and Product Support
Posts: 54
|
Post by EmoBrent on Aug 12, 2022 9:13:09 GMT -5
Chicken or Egg. In order to implement DLBC the Bass Management bugs have to be fixed, and as has been said, this requires a significant rewrite of code to correct a routing problem as well as the summing of multiple BM channels. That seems to be targeted for the release AFTER 3.x ... the rewrite, that is ...not DLBC. Someone from Emotiva please correct me if I didn't get that right. It eliminates the need for the miniDSP, if we get it and it works properly. DLBC has gone through some issues over the past year but seems to be working on other platforms. New arrivals to Dirac (Onkyo/Pioneer) seem to have some problems yet. I have been with Emotiva since the days of the DMC-1. I do not understand why I have to do a hard reboot every time I change inputs on a $3000 processor. I do not have a complicated system. This is rediculous! If you have not already, reach out to customerservice@emotiva.com. We may be able to help or advise if that is really the case. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Aug 12, 2022 9:21:55 GMT -5
I didn’t purchase my RMC-1L to be herded into a beta level functioning black box and be told “just sit back and enjoy the show”. 'Set it and forget it' has not arrived yet. My RMC-1L will have lived its useful life before it does. I would've moved on to another processor after only a couple months if my XMC-2 had continuing issues like many have posted about. I have a short temper for such things. Mine works, so I keep loving it, even after it needed a factory reflash. Warranty problem, warranty fix, just like my Krell amp had twice during its first five years. There isn't another processor I'd like to own that I can afford to get this year, but the brand I'd get if I didn't like my XMC-2 is Trinnov. It's a steep hill to climb to think I'd like the sound of a Trinnov any better for two channel, but it's very customizable and for HT, Trinnov would be tough to beat, maybe impossible. Audio quality is subjective, as such, my belief is that everything is a tone control, so that's why I say I love the sound of the XMC-2 for two channel and it would be difficult to best it with another processor.Yes, there are and have been things about the XMC-2 that don't work as they should, but some of those things I don't use, and the others I no longer need. My system setup evolved to overcome its shortcomings so my experience can remain great. Thought you might find this definition of sound quality interesting or amusing: “Sound quality is the result of an assessment of all features and feature values of a sound sample under examination which are recognized and nameable in the context of judging upon their suitability to meet all recognized and nameable features and feature values of individual expectations and/or social demands and/or pragmatic necessaries.” epdf.pub/communication-acoustics-signals-and-communication-technology.htmlThe whole paragraph: J. Blauert dense distribution of early lateral reflections would be rated as belonging to a hall which is well suited for music of the classical-romantic genre, as in this hall a high amount of auditory spaciousness will be provided, accompanied by clearness and transparency. In fact, this map stems from a hall which is considered to be among the three best ones in the world for this kind of music, namely, the Großer Musikvereinssaal in Vienna. The map at the right shows only sparse early lateral reflections and the respective hall, consequently, sounds less spacious. This is what may be preferred for modern symphonic music and also for electro-acoustically enhanced performances. We have chosen this example to demonstrate that binaural-activity maps can be used as a basis for the assessment and evaluation of the auditory quality of systems. Yet, the system, so far, only provides the basis for the judgement of experts. The experts have to use their knowledge and expertise to interpret the map. In fact, quality judgment at large is a very complex process, as becomes clear from the following definition of sound quality [34], translated from German. “Sound quality is the result of an assessment of all features and feature values of a sound sample under examination which are recognized and nameable in the context of judging upon their suitability to meet all recognized and nameable features and feature values of individual expectations and/or social demands and/or pragmatic necessaries.” In other words, quality judgement starts out from a set of recognized and nameable features, the so-called ”character” of the sound sample, which are then compared to a “reference set” of features. Quality might be defined as the distance between these two sets. In any case, what the experts do when assessing quality, requires expertise and knowledge. This is certainly more than can be modelled with a mere bottom-up, signals-driven algorithm. It has thus been realized in Communication Acoustics that for complex recognition task, such as “quality recognition” which we have taken as an example here, model architectures have to developed that allow for the incorporation of explicit knowledge. 1.2.2 “Cocktail-Party Processing” To support the above statement, a further example will be discussed in the following, based on an auditory phenomenon which is known as the “cocktailparty effect” in the field. The term cocktail-party effect denotes the fact that human listeners with healthy binaural-hearing capabilities are able to concentrate on one talker in a crowd of concurrent talkers and discriminate the speech of this talker from the rest. Also, binaural hearing is able to suppress noise, reverberance and sound colouration to a certain extent. Effort to model the cocktail-party effect may also start from binauralactivity maps as rendered by analysis systems as shown in Fig. 1.3. In Fig. 1.5 such a map is given which illustrates a case of two concurrent talkers. The... |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Aug 12, 2022 10:09:44 GMT -5
I would've moved on to another processor after only a couple months if my XMC-2 had continuing issues like many have posted about. I have a short temper for such things. Mine works, so I keep loving it, even after it needed a factory reflash. Warranty problem, warranty fix, just like my Krell amp had twice during its first five years. There isn't another processor I'd like to own that I can afford to get this year, but the brand I'd get if I didn't like my XMC-2 is Trinnov. It's a steep hill to climb to think I'd like the sound of a Trinnov any better for two channel, but it's very customizable and for HT, Trinnov would be tough to beat, maybe impossible. Audio quality is subjective, as such, my belief is that everything is a tone control, so that's why I say I love the sound of the XMC-2 for two channel and it would be difficult to best it with another processor.Yes, there are and have been things about the XMC-2 that don't work as they should, but some of those things I don't use, and the others I no longer need. My system setup evolved to overcome its shortcomings so my experience can remain great. Thought you might find this definition of sound quality interesting or amusing: “Sound quality is the result of an assessment of all features and feature values of a sound sample under examination which are recognized and nameable in the context of judging upon their suitability to meet all recognized and nameable features and feature values of individual expectations and/or social demands and/or pragmatic necessaries.” epdf.pub/communication-acoustics-signals-and-communication-technology.htmlThe whole paragraph: J. Blauert dense distribution of early lateral reflections would be rated as belonging to a hall which is well suited for music of the classical-romantic genre, as in this hall a high amount of auditory spaciousness will be provided, accompanied by clearness and transparency. In fact, this map stems from a hall which is considered to be among the three best ones in the world for this kind of music, namely, the Großer Musikvereinssaal in Vienna. The map at the right shows only sparse early lateral reflections and the respective hall, consequently, sounds less spacious. This is what may be preferred for modern symphonic music and also for electro-acoustically enhanced performances. We have chosen this example to demonstrate that binaural-activity maps can be used as a basis for the assessment and evaluation of the auditory quality of systems. Yet, the system, so far, only provides the basis for the judgement of experts. The experts have to use their knowledge and expertise to interpret the map. In fact, quality judgment at large is a very complex process, as becomes clear from the following definition of sound quality [34], translated from German. “Sound quality is the result of an assessment of all features and feature values of a sound sample under examination which are recognized and nameable in the context of judging upon their suitability to meet all recognized and nameable features and feature values of individual expectations and/or social demands and/or pragmatic necessaries.” In other words, quality judgement starts out from a set of recognized and nameable features, the so-called ”character” of the sound sample, which are then compared to a “reference set” of features. Quality might be defined as the distance between these two sets. In any case, what the experts do when assessing quality, requires expertise and knowledge. This is certainly more than can be modelled with a mere bottom-up, signals-driven algorithm. It has thus been realized in Communication Acoustics that for complex recognition task, such as “quality recognition” which we have taken as an example here, model architectures have to developed that allow for the incorporation of explicit knowledge. 1.2.2 “Cocktail-Party Processing” To support the above statement, a further example will be discussed in the following, based on an auditory phenomenon which is known as the “cocktailparty effect” in the field. The term cocktail-party effect denotes the fact that human listeners with healthy binaural-hearing capabilities are able to concentrate on one talker in a crowd of concurrent talkers and discriminate the speech of this talker from the rest. Also, binaural hearing is able to suppress noise, reverberance and sound colouration to a certain extent. Effort to model the cocktail-party effect may also start from binauralactivity maps as rendered by analysis systems as shown in Fig. 1.3. In Fig. 1.5 such a map is given which illustrates a case of two concurrent talkers. The... Interested in ttocs ' thoughts on this of course. Meantime, my thoughts on his statement about quality, and some about this definition ... Objective quality is a comparison to a known and agreed upon reference to what is correct. Subjective quality is "I like it" or "I don't like it". Yes, everything is a tone control! The best systems contribute little to nothing, but then there are systems that cost a TON and alter the sound in specific ways that some people subjectively prefer. Let's assume you can actually hear the difference between a very good Class D amp and a tube amp and you like the tube amp better. Unless there's an objective reference that says the tube amp is actually more accurate than the Class D amp, it's just a subjective opinion. In fact, even if there IS an objective reference, some people will like the tube amp better. So what is objective reference? The article talks about perception in a performance space. Yes, you can compare two spaces and there's still objective and subjective components. A friend said they heard the Philadelphia Orchestra in Verizon Hall and it was "fantastic!" .... I heard them in that hall and I thought it sounded like mush and I could barely even hear the soloist. And if you want to compare sound quality in a performance space to sound quality in a reproduction of music in a listening room ... well, first it depends on where and how the recording was made. Was the recording even done in a performance space, or was it done in a studio with close mics on all instruments and mastering with reverb, EQ and compression ... was there even a "there, there"? And how do many people objectively know what any given instrument or group of instruments sound like? If you play an instrument then you may have very good knowledge of yours and other instruments. In school I played drums in a band with 15 horns and a bass and piano. So I have a memory of how that band sounded. I also know that my drums sounded different depending on what heads I used and how I tuned them. And I had a LOT of cymbals from US, Turkey, China and Italy ... and they all sounded different. So how does a musician judge sound quality ... let alone a non-musician? Finally ... I'm perpetually perplexed by the "mystique" of two-channel. Just because we have two ears does not mean two-channel reproduction has some fundamental "rightness" about it. You can use two mics, a binaural head, and ambisonic processing with the same recording in the same space at the same time ... and the playback experience will be different. But maybe a well executed Atmos recording would be most accurate. And I won't even get started on the notion that Dirac is fine for HT but not for two-channel  |
|
|
|
Post by fazedout on Aug 12, 2022 20:47:39 GMT -5
reconsidered post not relevant here - migrating to more appropriate forum.
|
|
