|
|
Post by rovinggecko on Sept 5, 2022 13:10:44 GMT -5
Just to mention something here... In response to the idea of loading PEQ filters created by an external program directly into our processors.The short answer is that you actually CAN do this.Our XMC-1, XMC-2, RMC-1, and RMC-1L have the ability to save their PEQ settings to files, and to read PEQ filter settings from files. With the XMC-1 it was actually possible to read filters saved by REW into the processor directly. And, in fact, REW has a setting to save its filter files in the correct format (it did and I believe it still does). This enabled you to use room correction filters created by REW with our processors if you wanted to. (They're simply loaded as a set of PEQ settings into one of the Manual Filter presets.) It's a bit of a nuisance, and REW complicates matters by measuring and calibrating channels one at a time. As a result you have to save a set of filter files, one for each channel, then - for each file - you have to adjust the file name and a text tag inside the file. Once you do that you simply read the resulting set of filter files into the processor. However, while not many folks used this feature, I actually spoke to several people who did this successfully with their XMC-1's. (It takes some attention to detail but it's not really difficult beyond that.) The main reason we haven't discussed this capability on the current processors is simply that nobody has expressed much interest. And, of course, there are a lot more channels, some of which can even be reassigned, which makes it more important to keep track of file names and tags quite precisely. However, once you know the details of how the process works, and a few little tricks along the way, it's not that difficult to do. (To be quite honest we haven't even confirmed that it still works as expected since there has been so little interest so far.) HOWEVER, if you guys are interested in this, I'll be glad to revisit it... Just let me know and I'll start a new thread to explain how to do it... (Send me a few PM's if you're really interested... ) Please for the love of all that is holy do not make it a Windows App...lol Yes I agree with others, I think completely removing the OSD or the availability to make changes just with the remote is a backwards step. That's why I would be fine to leave the OSD in it's basic form as it is. I don't want to speak for everyone but I think the addition of a modern web based UI (not an app tied to iOS and Android as others have said) opens up the possibility of doing that from any device that has a web browser, PC, Mac, Tablet, or Phones. I would not necessarily need to use the web UI very often, but it would be extremely handy for when you need to make multiple changes, getting ready to run Dirac, etc. There is also the possibility of improving and adding more advanced features that cannot really be done from an OSD, as I mentioned previously the HTP-1 has the ability to do things like load Bass EQ filters directly into the PEQ of the device directly from the web UI (thanks to a custom web UI from PinkSoda over on AVS) which takes the MiniDSP out of the equation for those of us who like to do things like that....something to consider... I understand this is no small undertaking from a development side, but I personally think it would pay off by legitimizing these processors as modern competitors to the other brands out there who are already doing this. I would love the ability to load convolution files. Created outside with eg Acourate. the REW peq’s are a bit limited. |
|
|
|
Post by ElectricKoolAid on Sept 6, 2022 9:59:16 GMT -5
Just to mention something here... In response to the idea of loading PEQ filters created by an external program directly into our processors.The short answer is that you actually CAN do this.Our XMC-1, XMC-2, RMC-1, and RMC-1L have the ability to save their PEQ settings to files, and to read PEQ filter settings from files. With the XMC-1 it was actually possible to read filters saved by REW into the processor directly. And, in fact, REW has a setting to save its filter files in the correct format (it did and I believe it still does). This enabled you to use room correction filters created by REW with our processors if you wanted to. (They're simply loaded as a set of PEQ settings into one of the Manual Filter presets.) It's a bit of a nuisance, and REW complicates matters by measuring and calibrating channels one at a time. As a result you have to save a set of filter files, one for each channel, then - for each file - you have to adjust the file name and a text tag inside the file. Once you do that you simply read the resulting set of filter files into the processor. However, while not many folks used this feature, I actually spoke to several people who did this successfully with their XMC-1's. (It takes some attention to detail but it's not really difficult beyond that.) The main reason we haven't discussed this capability on the current processors is simply that nobody has expressed much interest. And, of course, there are a lot more channels, some of which can even be reassigned, which makes it more important to keep track of file names and tags quite precisely. However, once you know the details of how the process works, and a few little tricks along the way, it's not that difficult to do. (To be quite honest we haven't even confirmed that it still works as expected since there has been so little interest so far.) HOWEVER, if you guys are interested in this, I'll be glad to revisit it... Just let me know and I'll start a new thread to explain how to do it... (Send me a few PM's if you're really interested... ) Please for the love of all that is holy do not make it a Windows App...lol Yes I agree with others, I think completely removing the OSD or the availability to make changes just with the remote is a backwards step. That's why I would be fine to leave the OSD in it's basic form as it is. I don't want to speak for everyone but I think the addition of a modern web based UI (not an app tied to iOS and Android as others have said) opens up the possibility of doing that from any device that has a web browser, PC, Mac, Tablet, or Phones. I would not necessarily need to use the web UI very often, but it would be extremely handy for when you need to make multiple changes, getting ready to run Dirac, etc. There is also the possibility of improving and adding more advanced features that cannot really be done from an OSD, as I mentioned previously the HTP-1 has the ability to do things like load Bass EQ filters directly into the PEQ of the device directly from the web UI (thanks to a custom web UI from PinkSoda over on AVS) which takes the MiniDSP out of the equation for those of us who like to do things like that....something to consider... I understand this is no small undertaking from a development side, but I personally think it would pay off by legitimizing these processors as modern competitors to the other brands out there who are already doing this. Thanks for the information! This is a cool feature, but would not accomplish the same thing in this scenario unfortunately. For Bass EQ (BEQ as it's called), there is a repository of custom EQ filters that are used to "restore" low bass frequencies from movie soundtracks on a movie by movie basis (you're not actually restoring any bass just bringing it up to a useable level). In order to accomplish this, we would need to be able to load Dirac filters and PEQ filters at the same time. Currently in the G3P's this would not be possible. In the HTP-1 custom web UI, owners can search these custom EQ filters and apply them on top of your Dirac profile. Something like this would be awesome if the G3P's added a web UI. |
|
|
|
Post by wizardofoz on Sept 7, 2022 0:35:44 GMT -5
surely they are up to v3.5 by now so much time has passed since v3.0 was touted.
|
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 3,424
|
Post by Lsc on Sept 7, 2022 3:05:02 GMT -5
surely they are up to v3.5 by now so much time has passed since v3.0 was touted. It would be nice if they had a “release beta” version so folks can optionally install the firmware should they choose to. I’m sure it’s probably opening up a can of worms for someone but at least it’s an option. I only say this because from one beta tester’s perspective the beta firmware cuts appear to be pretty stable for overall functionality. There could be bugs for a specific function but it doesn’t render the unit useless or have any normal operation issues. Just a thought…I have had 3 system down days since I got my XMC2 and they were right at the beginning due to the HDMI cable issues. It took a few days to get delivery from Amazon. Since then zero down days…my unit has been 100% reliable. Yes the known issues are there like ARC but the lack of ARC doesn’t render my system useless - just need to use Apple TV and no TV apps. |
|
NicS
Sensei
Will the G4 upgrade help quell my RMC1-L frustrations...?
Posts: 238
|
Post by NicS on Sept 7, 2022 12:37:26 GMT -5
surely they are up to v3.5 by now so much time has passed since v3.0 was touted. It would be nice if they had a “release beta” version so folks can optionally install the firmware should they choose to. I’m sure it’s probably opening up a can of worms for someone but at least it’s an option. I only say this because from one beta tester’s perspective the beta firmware cuts appear to be pretty stable for overall functionality. There could be bugs for a specific function but it doesn’t render the unit useless or have any normal operation issues. Just a thought…I have had 3 system down days since I got my XMC2 and they were right at the beginning due to the HDMI cable issues. It took a few days to get delivery from Amazon. Since then zero down days…my unit has been 100% reliable. Yes the known issues are there like ARC but the lack of ARC doesn’t render my system useless - just need to use Apple TV and no TV apps. I'm hoping that v3.0 get's released this year. That's my level of optimism. |
|
|
|
Post by panasonicst60 on Sept 7, 2022 12:53:58 GMT -5
It would be nice if they had a “release beta” version so folks can optionally install the firmware should they choose to. I’m sure it’s probably opening up a can of worms for someone but at least it’s an option. I only say this because from one beta tester’s perspective the beta firmware cuts appear to be pretty stable for overall functionality. There could be bugs for a specific function but it doesn’t render the unit useless or have any normal operation issues. Just a thought…I have had 3 system down days since I got my XMC2 and they were right at the beginning due to the HDMI cable issues. It took a few days to get delivery from Amazon. Since then zero down days…my unit has been 100% reliable. Yes the known issues are there like ARC but the lack of ARC doesn’t render my system useless - just need to use Apple TV and no TV apps. I'm hoping that v3.0 get's released this year. That's my level of optimism. That's being very optimistic. Late(4th quarter) 2024 will be the 3.0 firmware or new processor line. |
|
NicS
Sensei
Will the G4 upgrade help quell my RMC1-L frustrations...?
Posts: 238
|
Post by NicS on Sept 7, 2022 13:01:47 GMT -5
I'm hoping that v3.0 get's released this year. That's my level of optimism. That's being very optimistic. Late(4th quarter) 2024 will be the 3.0 firmware or new processor line. I stand corrected. |
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,424
|
Post by Lsc on Sept 7, 2022 23:03:12 GMT -5
That's being very optimistic. Late(4th quarter) 2024 will be the 3.0 firmware or new processor line. I stand corrected. I’d be pretty surprised if these processors will be replaced with something new at this price point. Only because I don’t see many people buying them with how things have gone and Emotiva may be focused on lower priced products again. I have said for a while that if DLBC isn’t coming to my XMC2, I doubt I’ll ever buy another Emotiva processor. Still, my XMC2 is doing fine in my system and I’d have to spend a lot more money for perhaps little to no improvements in sound quality. Hence, the inner conflict. |
|
|
|
Post by ElectricKoolAid on Sept 8, 2022 11:04:23 GMT -5
I’d be pretty surprised if these processors will be replaced with something new at this price point. Only because I don’t see many people buying them with how things have gone and Emotiva may be focused on lower priced products again. I have said for a while that if DLBC isn’t coming to my XMC2, I doubt I’ll ever buy another Emotiva processor. Still, my XMC2 is doing fine in my system and I’d have to spend a lot more money for perhaps little to no improvements in sound quality. Hence, the inner conflict. I think sound quality is too subjective to really matter (IMO). I highly doubt there's been a scientific blind shootout between high end processors, my opinion is that at this price point they all probably sound the same if they are well engineered. Unfortunately the BM bug is an example of something that would effect sound quality, for better or worse. There's actually a review on YouTube and the reviewer had no idea about the bug and said the only difference here could hear between the Emo and another high end processor was that he felt the Emo had more bass, how crazy is that. Anyways, I guess the point I'm getting at is that at this price point I look more at the features and software than the sound quality since they should all be the same minus Room Correction software (another big selling point). DLBC was high on my list of items that I bought the XMC-2, so the fact it hasn't made it here yet is a big disappointment for me personally. |
|
Dreamer
Minor Hero
Klaatu Barada Nikto!
Posts: 68
|
Post by Dreamer on Sept 8, 2022 13:01:28 GMT -5
(I own the RMC-1L & the XPA-5 Gen.3)
I have another mystery; I was switching through my inputs and noticed a lot of static when I got the turntable, so I turned everything off and made sure the turntable was grounded. I went back to the turntable input and still had static so then I went to the FM tuner input and tried to tune a station in, and they all were full of static. I am not getting static from any other inputs, just turntable, FM and AM. I went behind the system and checked all the connections and couldn’t find a thing. Up until today everything was working fine. I put a record on the turntable the other day, I listen to the FM also but now suddenly I have this problem. Anyone want to take a guess what this is?
Thank you
|
|
ttocs
Global Moderator 
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,100
|
Post by ttocs on Sept 8, 2022 13:04:50 GMT -5
(I own the RMC-1L & the XPA-5 Gen.3) I have another mystery; I was switching through my inputs and noticed a lot of static when I got the turntable, so I turned everything off and made sure the turntable was grounded. I went back to the turntable input and still had static so then I went to the FM tuner input and tried to tune a station in, and they all were full of static. I am not getting static from any other inputs, just turntable, FM and AM. I went behind the system and checked all the connections and couldn’t find a thing. Up until today everything was working fine. I put a record on the turntable the other day, I listen to the FM also but now suddenly I have this problem. Anyone want to take a guess what this is? Thank you I'm sure you've mentioned this before, but can you refresh my memory as to which firmware you are using at the moment? Not sure what would cause static on the turntable, but if it's happening for that and the tuner, then it may be also happening for all analog inputs. So, I would perform a cold boot for a few minutes just as a matter of course. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,230
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 8, 2022 15:28:47 GMT -5
I'm not quite sure I can agree with you there... Back when the RMC-1 was under development we did a show and, since the RMC-1 didn't have its full decoding capabilities yet, we had a Marantz processor "hidden" under the table to decode Atmos content. (While we still used the RMC-1 to play everything else.) And, during that show, quite a few people insisted that the RMC-1 did in fact sound noticeably better then the Marantz when playing normal surround content. I've also been told by quite a few customers on the phone that they noticed a significant improvement when switching from another brand of processor to one of ours. (And, to be fair, I've also spoken to people who didn't notice a significant difference.) My point is NOT to make a specific claim... but rather the opposite... To suggest that you should NOT ASSUME that there won't be a difference until and unless you listen for yourself.  I’d be pretty surprised if these processors will be replaced with something new at this price point. Only because I don’t see many people buying them with how things have gone and Emotiva may be focused on lower priced products again. I have said for a while that if DLBC isn’t coming to my XMC2, I doubt I’ll ever buy another Emotiva processor. Still, my XMC2 is doing fine in my system and I’d have to spend a lot more money for perhaps little to no improvements in sound quality. Hence, the inner conflict. I think sound quality is too subjective to really matter (IMO). I highly doubt there's been a scientific blind shootout between high end processors, my opinion is that at this price point they all probably sound the same if they are well engineered. Unfortunately the BM bug is an example of something that would effect sound quality, for better or worse. There's actually a review on YouTube and the reviewer had no idea about the bug and said the only difference here could hear between the Emo and another high end processor was that he felt the Emo had more bass, how crazy is that. Anyways, I guess the point I'm getting at is that at this price point I look more at the features and software than the sound quality since they should all be the same minus Room Correction software (another big selling point). DLBC was high on my list of items that I bought the XMC-2, so the fact it hasn't made it here yet is a big disappointment for me personally. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,230
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 8, 2022 16:09:17 GMT -5
Actually, no, I have a phone that clips on my belt. (Although it does have an awful lot of features that I never use and would gladly have done without.) And I do sometimes miss the days when there was usually a human being on the other end of the line. And, while a cell phone is far more convenient, they aren't nearly as reliable as an old wired phone. And, incidentally, Green Acres is still in reruns... So, apparently, some classic things really do last forever... To be quite concise I too sometimes use the GUI when I'm setting things up. A GUI can be quite handy when you want to see a whole lot of information on a single screen... Which can be very handy when setting things up and fine tuning them... But, beyond that, I wouldn't like to think that I spent a lot of money on a pretty GUI that could have been better spent on something more useful. (And I'll bet you cannot name me a single GUI that you haven't found annoying and confusing at some point.) When I'm picking out an album to listen to, I would much rather pick the name off a text list than look at pictures of album covers. For example, when I want to play Dark Side of the Moon, I click on Lossless Albums, then Pink Floyd, then Dark Side of the Moon (EMI 2003). I find that far more intuitive looking at row after row of little pictures - trying to remember which one goes with the version of the album I want to listen to today. And, of course, it matches the directory structure on my server exactly... So I never have to figure out where the files that go with that album "really" are... But, yes, I do agree that a nice GUI is handy for setting up a complex piece of gear... Gee Keith, what part of Hooterville are you from? I hope you don't climb a pole to make a phone call. LOL! I'm showing my age A GUI, if designed well, can always enhance ease of use and navigation, and yes provide a more intuitive path to fine-tuning. Don't forget, we are visual creatures. It is 2022, going on 2023, not 1990. We dont watch the GUI, we use the GUI as our power tool Cheers...enjoy the weekend...and say Hi to Mr. Haney for me ;-) |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,230
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 8, 2022 16:26:03 GMT -5
I've heard of that before... and, yes, it would be cool. Note, though, that adding something like that is NOT simply a matter of adding a Web UI. In order to combine multiple filters of different types you need to be able to run both filters in the DSP at the same time. (Or somehow combine the results of both - in software - so the combined effect could be produced using a single set of filters.) The user interface is merely the equivalent of a control panel... (You cannot turbocharge your car merely by making room on the dashboard for a "Turbo" switch. ) The ideal place to do this sort of thing would be in the player device. Most computer-based MUSIC player programs actually do allow you to do all sorts of EQ with audio files. (You can also edit the file itself to make a "permanent" correction...) In principle, the processor should be providing overall correction for the room and audio system. But individual corrections, which must be loaded separately for each selection of content, should be performed at the player. In fact, if they were really cool, the player could automatically look up and load the appropriate correction file for each movie. (I wonder if some computer-based disc players or movie servers can do this... perhaps something like Plex.) Just to mention something here... In response to the idea of loading PEQ filters created by an external program directly into our processors.The short answer is that you actually CAN do this.Our XMC-1, XMC-2, RMC-1, and RMC-1L have the ability to save their PEQ settings to files, and to read PEQ filter settings from files. With the XMC-1 it was actually possible to read filters saved by REW into the processor directly. And, in fact, REW has a setting to save its filter files in the correct format (it did and I believe it still does). This enabled you to use room correction filters created by REW with our processors if you wanted to. (They're simply loaded as a set of PEQ settings into one of the Manual Filter presets.) It's a bit of a nuisance, and REW complicates matters by measuring and calibrating channels one at a time. As a result you have to save a set of filter files, one for each channel, then - for each file - you have to adjust the file name and a text tag inside the file. Once you do that you simply read the resulting set of filter files into the processor. However, while not many folks used this feature, I actually spoke to several people who did this successfully with their XMC-1's. (It takes some attention to detail but it's not really difficult beyond that.) The main reason we haven't discussed this capability on the current processors is simply that nobody has expressed much interest. And, of course, there are a lot more channels, some of which can even be reassigned, which makes it more important to keep track of file names and tags quite precisely. However, once you know the details of how the process works, and a few little tricks along the way, it's not that difficult to do. (To be quite honest we haven't even confirmed that it still works as expected since there has been so little interest so far.) HOWEVER, if you guys are interested in this, I'll be glad to revisit it... Just let me know and I'll start a new thread to explain how to do it... (Send me a few PM's if you're really interested... ) Thanks for the information! This is a cool feature, but would not accomplish the same thing in this scenario unfortunately. For Bass EQ (BEQ as it's called), there is a repository of custom EQ filters that are used to "restore" low bass frequencies from movie soundtracks on a movie by movie basis (you're not actually restoring any bass just bringing it up to a useable level). In order to accomplish this, we would need to be able to load Dirac filters and PEQ filters at the same time. Currently in the G3P's this would not be possible. In the HTP-1 custom web UI, owners can search these custom EQ filters and apply them on top of your Dirac profile. Something like this would be awesome if the G3P's added a web UI. |
|
richb
Sensei
Oppo Beta Group - Audioholics Reviewer
Posts: 889
|
Post by richb on Sept 8, 2022 17:27:52 GMT -5
I've heard of that before... and, yes, it would be cool. Note, though, that adding something like that is NOT simply a matter of adding a Web UI. In order to combine multiple filters of different types you need to be able to run both filters in the DSP at the same time. (Or somehow combine the results of both - in software - so the combined effect could be produced using a single set of filters.) The user interface is merely the equivalent of a control panel... (You cannot turbocharge your car merely by making room on the dashboard for a "Turbo" switch. ) The ideal place to do this sort of thing would be in the player device. Most computer-based MUSIC player programs actually do allow you to do all sorts of EQ with audio files. (You can also edit the file itself to make a "permanent" correction...) In principle, the processor should be providing overall correction for the room and audio system. But individual corrections, which must be loaded separately for each selection of content, should be performed at the player. In fact, if they were really cool, the player could automatically look up and load the appropriate correction file for each movie. (I wonder if some computer-based disc players or movie servers can do this... perhaps something like Plex.) Thanks for the information! This is a cool feature, but would not accomplish the same thing in this scenario unfortunately. For Bass EQ (BEQ as it's called), there is a repository of custom EQ filters that are used to "restore" low bass frequencies from movie soundtracks on a movie by movie basis (you're not actually restoring any bass just bringing it up to a useable level). In order to accomplish this, we would need to be able to load Dirac filters and PEQ filters at the same time. Currently in the G3P's this would not be possible. In the HTP-1 custom web UI, owners can search these custom EQ filters and apply them on top of your Dirac profile. Something like this would be awesome if the G3P's added a web UI. BEQ is a temporary settings that is intended to “correct” bass response in titles that are bass limited, for example, dramatically rolled off below 30 Hz. The ideal implementation, similar to the HTP-1, is permit loading the per-title curve onto the existing bass/Dirac settings (since they are to optimize the room). Like other temporary settings, the BEQ curves are not remembered on standby. - Rich |
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Sept 9, 2022 0:27:05 GMT -5
|
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,424
|
Post by Lsc on Sept 9, 2022 1:13:22 GMT -5
Just watched it lol. Gene said “do you become a beta tester for Emotiva until the product reaches obsolescence?” Ouch! |
|
|
|
Post by dvcdude on Sept 9, 2022 11:02:04 GMT -5
I'm not quite sure I can agree with you there... Back when the RMC-1 was under development we did a show and, since the RMC-1 didn't have its full decoding capabilities yet, we had a Marantz processor "hidden" under the table to decode Atmos content. (While we still used the RMC-1 to play everything else.) And, during that show, quite a few people insisted that the RMC-1 did in fact sound noticeably better then the Marantz when playing normal surround content. I've also been told by quite a few customers on the phone that they noticed a significant improvement when switching from another brand of processor to one of ours. (And, to be fair, I've also spoken to people who didn't notice a significant difference.) My point is NOT to make a specific claim... but rather the opposite... To suggest that you should NOT ASSUME that there won't be a difference until and unless you listen for yourself. I can now make a claim that the XMC-2 has better sound quality in my system than the Anthem AVM70. I hooked everything up an tweaked ARC several times to try to get the absolute best sound I could, but today I am returning the Anthem processor. I stress "in my system" I could not get the Anthem to reach the level of sound quality that I get from my XMC-2. |
|
|
|
Post by dvcdude on Sept 9, 2022 11:04:21 GMT -5
I can now make a claim that the XMC-2 has better sound quality in my system than the Anthem AVM70. I hooked everything up and tweaked ARC several times to try to get the absolute best sound I could, but today I am returning the Anthem processor. I stress "in my system" I could not get the Anthem to reach the level of sound quality that I get from my XMC-2.
Hope to see Firmware 3.0 soon!
|
|
|
|
Post by ElectricKoolAid on Sept 9, 2022 12:16:47 GMT -5
Actually, no, I have a phone that clips on my belt. (Although it does have an awful lot of features that I never use and would gladly have done without.) And I do sometimes miss the days when there was usually a human being on the other end of the line. And, while a cell phone is far more convenient, they aren't nearly as reliable as an old wired phone. And, incidentally, Green Acres is still in reruns... So, apparently, some classic things really do last forever... To be quite concise I too sometimes use the GUI when I'm setting things up. A GUI can be quite handy when you want to see a whole lot of information on a single screen... Which can be very handy when setting things up and fine tuning them... But, beyond that, I wouldn't like to think that I spent a lot of money on a pretty GUI that could have been better spent on something more useful. (And I'll bet you cannot name me a single GUI that you haven't found annoying and confusing at some point.) When I'm picking out an album to listen to, I would much rather pick the name off a text list than look at pictures of album covers. For example, when I want to play Dark Side of the Moon, I click on Lossless Albums, then Pink Floyd, then Dark Side of the Moon (EMI 2003). I find that far more intuitive looking at row after row of little pictures - trying to remember which one goes with the version of the album I want to listen to today. And, of course, it matches the directory structure on my server exactly... So I never have to figure out where the files that go with that album "really" are... But, yes, I do agree that a nice GUI is handy for setting up a complex piece of gear... Gee Keith, what part of Hooterville are you from? I hope you don't climb a pole to make a phone call. LOL! I'm showing my age A GUI, if designed well, can always enhance ease of use and navigation, and yes provide a more intuitive path to fine-tuning. Don't forget, we are visual creatures. It is 2022, going on 2023, not 1990. We dont watch the GUI, we use the GUI as our power tool Cheers...enjoy the weekend...and say Hi to Mr. Haney for me ;-) I appreciate your perspective on this. It's not necessarily that I disagree with what you are saying, just trying to provide the other point of view. I think a well designed GUI allows for complex operations that are not possible or are clunky on a text based interface for the average user. I also think a responsive, well designed GUI would be easier for me personally (and maybe others) than the current OSD. There are still thinks that the OSD might be quicker to do than on a web based GUI, but for me I always have a my smart phone next to me and I have a server rack with a monitor right next to my setup so I can always step right over and pull up the web in seconds. I often find that unless I do a reboot of my processor before using the OSD, it gets laggy and then when I click to go up or down I'll end up accidentally going to far or opening the wrong submenu, backing out maybe getting it right the next time. Then sometimes when I get to the end of the submenu, I realize I'm not where I thought I was going to be, then I have to go back out and start searching through all of them until I find what I am looking for. A nice, logical GUI allows for much quicker access to menus and features at a glance and can easily and quickly be changed. The key would be the design. It needs to be intuitive and responsive and well laid out using some sort of modern framework that is cross compatible with all devices/browsers. I'm not a javascript programmer but I think something like the React JS framework would be a logical choice, or at least a good candidate. Anyways, that's all I'll say on this subject for now. I would much rather see development resources go to other things before a web UI, such as my personal #1 which is DLBC...I'll leave it at that! |
|
approximately 8 minutes in is a possible Emo avr ..